Open records and meetings in Kansas are in the news.
Today, the Wichita Eagle’s Brent Wistrom reports on training held by the Kansas Attorney General’s office. The story’s headline — Many Kansas officials fuzzy on open-government laws — gives one reporter’s opinion as to the recognition of open records law in Kansas.
I attended the same training event in Wichita that Wistrom did.
This is the unedited version of an op-ed that appeared in today’s Wichita Eagle.
Open Records Law Needs an Overhaul
By Dave Trabert
“An open and transparent government is essential to the democratic process. Under Kansas law, citizens have the right to access public records and observe many meetings where decisions are made that affect our state.”
That quote is taken from the Kansas Attorney General’s web site. Unfortunately, the second sentence isn’t really true. Kansans may technically have the right to access some public records (those not protected by more than 300 exemptions the Legislature has granted), but too often we lack the ability because of government opposition.
Our own ongoing struggle is a classic example of overt, and to some extent, coordinated, government efforts to deny taxpayers access to public information. On April 15, we e-mailed open records requests to county appraisers, asking for 2009 appraisal data and some historical information on residential appraisals. Initial replies ranged from full, speedy and courteous fulfillment of the request to no reply whatsoever, even though the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) requires that government respond within three business days.
In some cases, the reply was essentially, “go away.” Some said the 2009 data wouldn’t be released until it was certified to the County Clerk; even though there is no such exemption under KORA. Others said they wouldn’t release the data until we signed their Open Records form, some of which asked for information that KORA expressly prohibits.
Others hid behind a provision that permits government to reject a request that causes them to “create” a record, meaning they don’t have to provide information unless it is maintained in the exact manner in which it is requested. Government shouldn’t have such broad latitude, but they do. One part of our request is covered by that exemption, but even after we arranged for their software vendors to supply a free update that would generate the requested information, some counties refuse to provide the information.
Charging high costs to receive information is another way to discourage the public. KORA allows government to charge the actual cost of providing information, but some counties attempted to charge us more.
There are other, even more egregious examples of government’s open attempts to discourage legitimate requests. The Shawnee County appraiser wrote a “Dear Colleagues” letter, encouraging others to seek the guidance of their legal counsel and informing them of his intention to deny portions of our request. Last week in front of a large gathering, the Sumner County appraiser screamed at me for “demanding” information and “threatening” (having the temerity to challenge their county counselor’s decision).
Two months after our initial request we have complete information from only 67 counties. Formal complaints filed with county attorneys were largely ignored, so we have notified the remaining 38 counties that our next step will be to file suit to compel compliance. Unfortunately, that is the only recourse and one that many citizens lack the means to pursue.
This travesty must end. The Legislature should completely rewrite KORA so that citizens’ rights to access public information are completely protected. No charges for information … limited exemptions … requirements to find ways to comply even if it means creating a record … and realistic enforcement provisions. After all, an open and transparent government is essential to the democratic process.
Dave Trabert is President of the Kansas-based Flint Hills Center for Public Policy and he can be reached at dave.trabert@flinthills.org.
“What started out as research into property valuations in Kansas has turned into a frustrating protracted battle over differing perspectives on open government. Denials and delays have slowed or prevented examination of government fiscal policy as budget and taxation issues were being addressed in the legislature. Access was further frustrated by decades-old computer technology.”
This reminds me of some of my experiences with open records. One frustrating experience was with former governor Kathleen Sebelius’ office, as detailed in Open Records in Kansas and Open Records in Kansas Follow-Up. It was also a front-page story in the Sunday Wichita Eagle.
Or, the interim superintendent — that’s Martin Libhart — might make a show in public about having information, but then be unable to fulfill the request.
Sources tell me that Sedgwick County will soon be making a few changes and rolling out a new program that will increase citizens’ access to information. Until then, both citizens and journalists will have to deal with hostile or indifferent government bureaucrats.
(This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)
I NVESTIGATIVE R EPORT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 29, 2009 Contact: Paul Soutar (316) 634-0218 Determination and Preparations for a Lawsuit Slowly Extract Public Data Seven weeks after the original request, Saline County’s appraiser, under pressure from an impending lawsuit, delivered some of the property tax data sought by the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy from all Kansas counties. As of May 29, 44 of 105 Kansas counties have not provided all the requested data. What started out as research into property valuations in Kansas has turned into a frustrating protracted battle over differing perspectives on open government. Denials and delays have slowed or prevented examination of government fiscal policy as budget and taxation issues were being addressed in the legislature. Access was further frustrated by decades-old computer technology. Open government laws like the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) are designed to ensure citizens have access to government information and are an important aid in maintaining citizen control of government. One of the issues cited by Saline County and others is whether a county can legally withhold 2009 appraised totals until all taxpayer appeals have been processed. Ellen Mitchell, in a May 20 e-mail to Flint Hills, said, “The records will be available in a short period of time. A lawsuit to compel seems to be a waste of time, money and judicial resources at a time we need to be conserving money and resources.” Flint Hills’ president Dave Trabert responded that, “a lawsuit to compel government to release public information is, in my mind, time and money well spent.” More than half of Kansas counties had already provided all the data requested and Flint Hills is receiving more data each day. “If that’s what it takes to force government agencies to uphold their duty for openness and transparency that’s an unfortunate thing,” said Caleb Stegall, attorney for Flint Hills. Saline County and others also insisted that their open records form must be completed. Trabert refuses to do so, saying that everything the county is entitled to receive has already been submitted in writing. “Other counties initially raised the same issues but most accepted our explanation and have either submitted the information or are in the process of doing so,” said Trabert. “I’m told that Sumner County’s attorney is doing research to reply to our open records request.” Flint Hills e-mailed requests to appraisers for 104 Kansas counties on April 15, 2009. (Sedgwick County was already gathering the data and didn’t require a written request). Initial replies ranged from full and speedy fulfillment to no reply at all. In a few cases the reply was the equivalent of saying “go away,” according to Trabert. As of May 29, more than a month later, 61 have provided full data, 34 sent partial data and 8 say they are collecting the data. Comanche County has still not responded to e-mails and phone messages. Saline County Appraiser Rod Brodgerg had not responded to a request for the remaining data as of this writing. Trabert says he is hoping that lawsuits are not necessary to force compliance by the 44 counties that have not submitted complete information, but is fully prepared to do so. KORA allows three business days to respond to, though not necessarily fulfill, a request. The law says, “public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.” Unfortunately, citizens and journalists have broad experience with state and local government not abiding by the clearly-stated spirit or the more murky letter of the law. In a 1999 collaborative statewide audit conducted by journalists and other open government advocates, about 85 percent of requests were fulfilled but the audit also found significant problems. A Wichita Eagle reporter seeking a basic crime report in Harper County refused to answer questions beyond what the law allows and was briefly detained by sheriff’s officers. “If government only gets 85% of things right they deal with, that’s pretty bad,” said Randy Brown in a recent interview. Brown is the executive director of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government. “No business would tolerate that margin of error, and no government should.” Jean Hays, deputy editor for news at the Wichita Eagle, says most of the paper’s KORA requests are promptly filled but there are still problems. “We do sometimes encounter reluctance of agencies to release information or to release it in a timely manner. We disagree at times with some agencies that believe KORA exempts some records.” Flint Hills’ difficulty in obtaining timely information fell into several categories and point to broader problems with open government in Kansas. Creating or accessing records Governments subject to KORA are not required to create records, only to provide copies of records that they normally have. So if a citizen asks for several pieces of data that are on file but not normally compiled into a report, the agency may refuse to deliver the data. Ellsworth County Counselor Joe Shepack refused to provide data in a summary format that was readily available but offered access to thousands of individual parcel records from which the analysis would have to be laboriously gathered. “I find it interesting that you have other counties which have the time and personnel to create records for you,” Shepack said. Ellsworth County received the free program that would facilitate compiling the requested data. Technology problems Kansas county appraisers use a computer-assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) system to manage property appraisals. The system used by most counties, purchased in 1989 and based on 1975 technology, stores data for only two years, current and previous. Any data older than the previous year is stored outside the system and can only be reloaded into the system after the current or previous year’s data is removed. Some appraisers said this technological limitation made it difficult and possibly risky for them to retrieve data that would allow an analysis of certain property value trends. Several appraisers figured out how to access the data on their own. The Harvey County appraiser contacted Manatron, their CAMA software support vendor, which provided a short program and distributed it at no charge to the 79 Kansas counties it supports. Another software support company charged Flint Hills a small fee for a similar program written for its nine Kansas customers. One of those customers, Miami County, has thus far refused access to the data. Several Kansas counties have already switched to a newer appraisal system, Orion, which allows archiving and analysis of many years of data both by appraisers and through an online portal. The system will allow each county to set the level of online access for the public. Enforcement problems A representative of the Kansas Attorney General’s office told Trabert the attorney general’s office can not intervene in a complaint about a county’s lack of compliance with an open records request. A formal complaint can be filed with the county attorney, but if the complaint is denied the only alternative is to file a lawsuit. Fees charged exceed legal limits Some counties asked for fees that exceeded the cost of staff time to provide the records. KORA permits only actual costs for staff time and copying to fulfill the request. Ellsworth County sets fees unique to its county for searching and copying public records in response to KORA requests: • $10 to search for a readily accessible record in the county courthouse • $30, plus an hourly fee of $30 beyond the first half-hour, to view a record stored at the county courthouse • $60, plus an hourly fee of $60 beyond the first half-hour, to access records stored outside the county courthouse • $60 per hour if an elected official is required to travel in response to a KORA-related subpoena “There’s no reason we should have to pay people to comply with the law or make exceptions to the law, Brown said. Many counties waived any fees to Flint Hills, and some of those initially requesting fees higher than actual costs modified the charges after being made aware of the law. The Ellsworth County appraiser recently contacted Trabert and provided the data which the county’s lawyer refused to provide. Ignorance of the law The original KORA request from Flint Hills referenced the Kansas KORA statute, but many of the county employees contacted seemed unaware of the specifics of the law. “I truly believe some of this is not people trying to refuse public data but probably just not clear or certain of what the law says,” said Trabert. Some counties demanded use of their open records form that asked for more than the requester’s name, address and a description of the records requested, the only requirements under KORA. For example, Leavenworth County’s form includes a space for the requester’s employer and the reason for the request. The law says any citizen can access open records and that a “public agency may require a written request for inspection of public records but shall not otherwise require a request to be made in any particular form.” Flint Hills refused to complete individual county forms on the basis that all of the legally permitted information had already been provided; all but Sumner and Ness counties have since withdrawn that demand. Trabert says if someone gets a KORA request the response should be, “How can we help you?” He questions a perspective focusing on denial of records requests. “If the goal is to help people get information, you don’t need to understand all the nuances of what you don’t have to do. Look for reasons to give the information, not reasons not to give it.” “The initial response was mostly a variety of ways of saying, ‘No,’” Trabert said during a recent interview in his office. “‘The data’s not certified, come back in two months.’ ‘I don’t have it, contact someone else.’ ‘You must fill out our form.’ ‘We don’t have the data in that format so we’re not required to give it to you.’” During the interview Trabert received a phone call from an attorney representing a county that had not provided the data. Trabert spent several minutes explaining how a free program could enable the county’s computer system to access and report the data. Several thick stacks of documents dotted his desk, correspondence from counties giving one reason or another for not providing the requested records. According to national evaluations on open records law, KORA has room for improvement. A 2008 study by the Better Government Association (BGA) ranked Kansas’ open records law 18th in the nation. A 2007 study by BGA and the National Freedom of Information Coalition gave Kansas an F and ranked the state 25th out of 50. A 2002 study by BGA and Investigative Reporters and Editors gave Kansas a D. “There are too many exemptions to the law,” said Brown. “There are hundreds of exemptions buried in law that are not KORA.” There are 48 exemptions within the KORA statute and more than 300 in other Kansas laws. Jim Hollingsworth, executive director of Information Network of Kansas, knows his organization’s work is important to local government transparency. “The state is working very hard to provide transparency. That’s what KanView (http://www.kansas.gov/kanview/) is all about.” Hollingsworth says it’s tough asking for technology upgrades in a time of tight budgets. It’s also a challenge to change personal culture. He says people get comfortable with a way of doing things and they’re not going to change unless you prove its better for them. “If you have a burning platform underneath you, you’re more amenable to change,” he said. “Local governments are going to plead poverty or say they don’t have the staff or the money or open government is just a little too much trouble,” Brown said. Brown’s Sunshine Coalition and its members, including the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy, are working to educate the public about the importance of government transparency, improve the KORA law and encourage local governments to modernize and be more open. In 1861 Kansas was set up with 105 counties so county seats would be within a one-day horseback ride for any resident. Today’s citizens aren’t likely to saddle up and ride to the county seat to check on local government. They’ll either demand modern access or be saddled with the government they allow. “If they’re not in the 21st Century, it’s time governments get with it,” Brown said. “No matter what the excuse, it’s still a violation of the law.” Open Records, Open Meetings Training The office of the Kansas attorney general has set up regional KORA and Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA) training at four sites around the state in June. Elected and appointed officials, staff of state and local agencies, media and the general public are invited to attend. All events begin at 9 a.m. and end at noon. Dodge City, June 23 Olathe, June 24 Topeka, June 25 Wichita, June 26 More information and registration forms are available by clicking on the KORA/KOMA Workshops link at KSAG.org. # # # Paul Soutar is an Investigative Reporter with the Flint Hills Center for Public Policy. A complete bio on Mr. Soutar can be found at http://www.flinthills.org/content/view/6/5/, and he can be reached at paul.soutar@flinthills.org. To learn more about the Flint Hills Center, please visit www.flinthills.org. The Flint Hills Center for Public Policy is an independent Kansas-based think tank that provides research and initiates reform in education, fiscal policy and health care. We are dedicated to the constitutional principles of limited government, open markets, and personal responsibility, which we believe are essential for individual freedom and prosperity to flourish. 250 N. Water, Suite #216 Wichita, Kansas 67202-1215 (316) 634-0218 information@flinthills.org www.flinthills.org
Next Tuesday, four members of the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, seek to be elected again to their current posts.
These members — Lanora Nolan, Lynn Rogers, Connie Dietz and Betty Arnold — are part of a board and school district that is increasingly out-of-step with education reforms that are working in other parts of the country. Their policies and actions are harmful to both Wichita schoolchildren and Wichita taxpayers.
At the time when most of the country is starting to realize that quality teachers, not the number of teachers, is what makes the biggest difference in student outcomes, the Wichita school district is going the wrong way. The bond issue, with its focus on reducing class size, will force the district to hire more teachers. This makes it more likely that schoolchildren in Wichita will be taught by poorly-performing teachers.
Its contract with its teachers union forbids any type of merit pay that might induce the best teachers to stay in teaching. Instead, all teachers are paid the same. Only length of service and extra education credentials allow teachers to earn more. Now researchers have found that length of service and the credentials earned at university schools of education make very little difference in student outcomes.
Across the country parents can take advantage of school choices programs such as charter schools, vouchers, and tax credits. These programs give parents — instead of school administrators and politicians — choice as to where to send their children to school. In some cases, they allow parents to decide how their own tax dollars should be spent. The Wichita school district, including its board and the incumbent candidates that stand for election next week, are firmly against these type of programs that have benefited many students and parents. They prefer a government monopoly.
The Wichita school district and its board are miles behind other school districts and governmental agencies regarding transparency and openness. Its recent search for a new superintendent was conducted in such a secretive manner that even the Wichita Eagle’s Rhonda Holman — one of the district’s several apologists at that newspaper — was critical.
The district and board’s attitude towards citizens is nothing less than hostile. In particular, board member, now board president, Lynn Rogers has told citizens that records requests are a burden to the district. When citizens ask for evidence of claims the district makes, Rogers advises them to use Google to look things up for themselves.
The board gets even little things wrong. For example, the board’s agenda that’s posted on the USD 259 website holds appendixes, which are usually attached files that hold additional information such as a Powerpoint presentation. But these files are removed quickly after the meeting. Most governmental agencies leave them available for eternity.
Three board members, in their joint campaign materials, state they are proud of 11 years of rising test scores. Across the country school districts and states have watered-down testing standards in response to political pressure to produce rising test scores. Is this the case in Wichita and Kansas? We don’t know. But as scores rise on tests administered by the state, they remain unchanged on the national tests that are immune from local political pressures.
The fact that all of the candidates facing election challenges have advertised jointly is evidence of another severe problem on the Wichita board of education: Rarely is there controversy or evidence of independent thought by board members. Consider the bond issue from last year, which passed narrowly (51 percent to 49 percent) when voted on by the public. Board members were unanimous in their support of the bond issue. What are the odds of that? (Well, board member Jeff Davis initially dissented, but only because he thought his district didn’t get its fair share. His straying from the board’s groupthink mentality was short-lived, however, as at the next meeting he changed his vote.)
Then there’s the bond issue from last year. One analysis found that 72% of the contributions, both in-kind and cash, came from contractors, architects, engineering firms and others who directly stand to benefit from the new construction. The board rewarded Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture for its efforts in passing the bond issue with a no-bid $3.7 million contract to manage the bond issue.
As large as the bond issue is, to board members it’s not enough. Board members started with a list of projects that totaled some $550 million. These projects are on the back burner, and as soon as this board senses the time is right, it will propose another bond issue. Count on it.
We should remember the board’s conduct during the election. Calling a special election to be held in May, the board delayed it when it appeared the political landscape was not in their favor — after their opponents had mobilized and spent resources. The board appeared to rely on a hapless citizen group during the summer months for recommendations. Despite the district’s denials, huge amounts of district resources, all provided by taxpayers, were used to promote the bond issue.
This Wichita school district and its board is an institution firmly rooted in and preferring a big-government style of education monopoly. It ignores evidence of reforms that work, preferring to remain beholden to special interests such as the teachers union, education bureaucrats, and firms that benefit from school construction. None of its members deserve re-election.
It seems that citizens all over the country have trouble with public school districts and records requests. Sometime you have to battle not only the school district, but also third parties such as teachers unions. My friend Chetly Zarko has been in such as battle, as reported here: Livingston Daily Reports on Zarko victory over the MEA.
USD 259, the Wichita public school district, wants to be held accountable. They say so. It’s a theme of the proposed bond issue, as recently stated by celebrity spokesman George Fahnestock: “…the district’s accountability is strong…” (See CARE launches Yes For Kids campaign)
But what happens when citizens seek information from USD 259 that will let them verify claims made by the district?
One of the things I and others have been looking at is the number of classrooms in the district’s schools. We made a records request asking for this number, and we were told this information would cost us $860. (See Wichita School District Values Its Information Highly)
I wondered if the district actually knows how many classrooms it has. Interim superintendent Martin Libhart told me at a May 12 school board meeting “We do know how many classrooms we have, I can assure you of that.” Follow-up correspondence with Mr. Libhart revealed that the count of classrooms is a slightly more complicated issue than it might appear at first. Still, no count is available. So Wichitans are left with this message from USD 259: We can’t tell you how many classrooms we have, but we’re sure we need many more.
Even simple requests post a problem. Asking for the definition of a “violent act” in the context of statistics for USD 259 that I collected from the Kansas State Department of Education requires weeks of waiting and follow up messages. Finally, a request to be placed on the agenda of a board meeting produced the answer I was looking for.
On top of this, citizens who request information like this from USD 259 are made to feel guilty. That’s right. Lynn Rogers, now Wichita school board president, says these records requests interfere with the board’s mission of educating children. (Wichita Public Schools: Open Records Requests Are a Burden)
I recently made a request for records from USD 259. It was rejected. This week I revised the request and narrowed its scope. We’ll have to see how this request is handled.
Recently, a top investigative journalist told me that with the declining resources of local newspapers, many government agencies routinely deny records requests or slow-walk them, as agencies know that newspapers don’t have the resources to vigorously pursue requests.
USD 259 consumes huge resources. Its budget is larger than either the City of Wichita or Sedgwick County, and it grows rapidly. It now asks for Wichitans to support even more spending in the form of the proposed bond issue. But when asked for information that Wichitans can use, the district’s answer is clear: accountability is on our terms.
Today, I’ve made two records requests under the Kansas Open Records Act.
The first, to USD 259, the Wichita public school district, is this:
All correspondence between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture and its representatives from July 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between USD 259 and Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture’s email accounts at sjcf.com, and also email accounts of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture representatives such as Joe Johnson, Kenton Cox, and Ken Arnold that may not be at an sjcf.com email address.
Then, to the City of Wichita:
All correspondence between the City of Wichita and HH Holdings, LLC and its representatives from January 1, 2007 to the present. I ask for both written and electronic correspondence such as email. This would include email between the City of Wichita and Kevass Harding at both business and personal email addresses, between the City of Wichita and Key Construction and its representatives at both business and personal email addresses, and between the City of Wichita and Landmark Commercial Real Estate at both business and personal email addresses.
Taxation without information. I wish I could take credit for inventing this phrase that I recently heard someone use. It captures very well the key characteristic of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, and its campaign for the proposed 2008 bond issue.
As highlighted by Wichita Eagle columnist Mark McCormick in his column District’s public files ought not cost $1,000, the Wichita public school district doesn’t like to release information. Mr. McCormick accuses some bond issue opponents of using Kansas Open Records Act information requests simply to “make hay for another ‘No’ campaign straw man.” I’ll explain another day why he’s wrong with the straw man argument, but even if he was correct, the people still have the right to know some basic facts.
The district does release a lot of information, of course. Whether it is useful in making a decision about the proposed bond issue is up to each voter. Sometimes these facts have been expressed unclearly. This was the case when I and a number of journalists used an incorrect figure for the cost of the safe rooms. The district issued a clarification, so now we have the correct information -– maybe.
Other needed clarifications, however, are not easy to obtain. The number of classrooms at each school, the subject of one records request, is an example. It seems that people intuitively understand the number of classrooms. They reason like this: “For school A, the district may estimate an enrollment of B students. The goal for class size is C students per class. Currently school A has D number of classrooms. So let’s do the arithmetic and see if school A needs more classrooms.”
Is it as simple as this, or is the situation more complicated? Doesn’t the district go through a process similar to this when it figures how many teachers are needed at each school?
More importantly, since overcrowding is given as one of the most important reasons why the Wichita school district needs a bond issue, shouldn’t facts and figures like these be known by the district, readily available, and shouldn’t the public be able to see them?
Recently I attended an event hosted by Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education, a citizen group that supports the bond issue. By way of what I considered to be a slightly bizarre method, a handful of experts from USD 259 addressed citizen concerns and answered questions. If you attended the event and knew little or nothing about the bond issue, you would have learned something, at least USD 259’s take on the issue. For those familiar with the issues, there was no new information presented.
Afterwards, the friend I attended the event with was pressured by a representative of the school district’s architect. Now that we have given you the information, he said, will you support the bond issue? This was a slightly better offer than what Wichita school board member Betty Arnold made to me, which was, as reported in The Wichita Eagle “So if you had the correct information, then would you support the bond issue?” My response was “If I had correct information, then I could make a decision.”
Sometimes even simple tasks regarding information are either difficult to perform or simply overlooked. As of today, June 19, 2008, the website for Citizens Alliance for Responsible Education at vote4kids2008.org still states the bond issue special election will be held on May 6, 2008, when at CARE’s own request, the Wichita school board canceled that election on April 7, 2008.
The Wichita school district’s attitude towards the public is demonstrated by two events. One, as related in In Wichita, Don’t Take Photographs of the School Administration Building! which tells how a citizen, standing on a public sidewalk taking a photograph of the Wichita school district administration building, was ordered by a district security guard to stop.
The second, much more serious, is the district’s willingness to rewrite its own rules when it feels things aren’t going its way, as explained in Wichita School Board Poisons Democracy.
I have several basic requests for information pending at the Wichita school district. Simple things like where on the district’s website can I see test scores? Where can I learn the definition of a “violent act” so that we can properly understand statistics made available at the Kansas State Department of Education? I will report on the results. Until then, it is taxation without information.
Listen to an audio broadcast of this article here.
I recently learned that USD 259 (the Wichita, Kansas public school district) considers it a burden when citizens make requests for records. At least that’s what Lynn Rogers, vice-president of the board of USD 259, told me at a May 12, 2008 meeting when I was invited to express concerns regarding my opposition to the proposed 2008 bond issue. I suspect the other board members and administration officials agree with him.
As a government institution, the Wichita public school district is subject to the Kansas Open Records Act, which requires it to respond to citizen requests for information. The ability to smoothly and competently, with a minimum of fuss, provide records to any requesting member of the public is a core competency that we should routinely expect of a public agency.
It is not the fault of a member of the public if a government agency is thrown into disarray by a few public records requests; rather, that suggests that the agency has not yet developed a professional competence in records archiving and management. The budget of the school district is $544,384,275 a year (2006-2007 school year). If they spent 0.01% of that on records management, the annual amount available for records management and retrieval would be $54,438.
I’d encourage the Wichita school district to follow the practice of District 300 in Illinois, which not only provides copies of records requested in a professional manner but posts all records requests and records retrieved under those requests on its own website, so anyone can see them. In this way the effort of the district to produce records is leveraged, and more citizens can become aware of school district information. The Illinois District 300 site may be viewed here: The District 300 Freedom of Information Act Online Program.
In order for school districts to effectively educate their students there must be a strong bond of trust between the school and its stakeholders in the community — parents, students, taxpayers, and district employees. These bonds of trust are undermined when the school district carps about providing records to the very public with whom it needs to build strong bonds. No better example of this is the scolding that interim superintendent Martin Libhart delivered to me at the May 12 meeting. “We do know how many classrooms we have, I can assure you of that,” he said. So Mr. Libhart, why not share those numbers with us?
Wichita school district officials say they want to be held accountable. Responding to records requests is one way for them to fulfill that desire. But the district’s attitude when faced with requests filed by citizens reveals a different attitude.
As Randy Brown recently wrote in The Wichita Eagle: “Without open government, you don’t have a democracy.” I rely on a greater authority, Thomas Jefferson, who said: “The same prudence, which, in private life, would forbid our paying our money for unexplained projects, forbids it in the disposition of public moneys.”