Investigation? What investigation? That seemed to be South Eastern
School District's response -- twice -- when we asked for the results of
Philadelphia-based lawyer Michael Levin's investigation into the
district's superintendent and administrative staff.
An investigation, mind you, that the school board hired Levin to do.
On Aug. 1, reporter Angie Mason requested the "report or results of investigation by Levin Legal Group." South Eastern denied the request, saying in part that "because of the lack of specificity as to what you may have in mind, it is possible that one or more documents you contemplate do not exist."
As far as we knew, there was only one lawyer hired by South Eastern to conduct an investigation into the administration, so we were puzzled that the district couldn't put a finger on what we were asking for.
But -- after calling the district to try to talk the problem out and getting no response -- we filed a revised formal request, this time for "Report resulting from the investigation into the superintendent and administrative staff, conducted by Levin Legal Group, as described in the board resolution attached."
No way they could throw up their hands this time, we thought. But the response came back: "Because of the lack of specificity as to what you may have in mind, it is possible that one or more documents you contemplate do not exist."
Both responses from the district, after its initial we're-not-sure-what-you-mean response, included six responses that "some or all of the records" are exempt for various reasons (attorney client privilege, non-criminal investigation, and so forth.
Then we appealed to the open records office, noting that we had clearly identified what we were seeking, so the "lack of specificity" reason for denial did not apply; and that even if a document is considered to be exempt, if there are parts of it that are not exempt, those parts must be released.
The district filed its response to our appeal Tuesday, and guess what? It knew exactly what we were talking about, with both Levin and district lawyer Brooke Say laying out exemptions they believe apply to Levin's investigation. They didn't bother the open records office with the we're-not-sure-what-we're-looking-for response.
No surprise there.
An investigation, mind you, that the school board hired Levin to do.
On Aug. 1, reporter Angie Mason requested the "report or results of investigation by Levin Legal Group." South Eastern denied the request, saying in part that "because of the lack of specificity as to what you may have in mind, it is possible that one or more documents you contemplate do not exist."
As far as we knew, there was only one lawyer hired by South Eastern to conduct an investigation into the administration, so we were puzzled that the district couldn't put a finger on what we were asking for.
But -- after calling the district to try to talk the problem out and getting no response -- we filed a revised formal request, this time for "Report resulting from the investigation into the superintendent and administrative staff, conducted by Levin Legal Group, as described in the board resolution attached."
No way they could throw up their hands this time, we thought. But the response came back: "Because of the lack of specificity as to what you may have in mind, it is possible that one or more documents you contemplate do not exist."
Both responses from the district, after its initial we're-not-sure-what-you-mean response, included six responses that "some or all of the records" are exempt for various reasons (attorney client privilege, non-criminal investigation, and so forth.
Then we appealed to the open records office, noting that we had clearly identified what we were seeking, so the "lack of specificity" reason for denial did not apply; and that even if a document is considered to be exempt, if there are parts of it that are not exempt, those parts must be released.
The district filed its response to our appeal Tuesday, and guess what? It knew exactly what we were talking about, with both Levin and district lawyer Brooke Say laying out exemptions they believe apply to Levin's investigation. They didn't bother the open records office with the we're-not-sure-what-we're-looking-for response.
No surprise there.
Leave a comment