|
| |
|
|
| |
 |
| Related Stories |
• Smile, you're on candid camera: 9/17/09
|
| |
| CONTACT THE HERALD |
Robert Frank, City Editor
frank@heraldnet.com |
| |
Published: Thursday, September 17, 2009
Judge orders Everett School District to share records
By Eric Stevick Herald Writer
The Everett School District must turn over additional records requested by the teachers union in its effort to learn how a secret camera ended up in a teacher’s classroom, a Snohomish County Superior Court judge has ruled.
The Everett Education Association in March filed a lawsuit alleging the district violated the Washington Public Records Act by withholding information the union first requested in May 2008.
Judge David Kurtz ruled that the district could not black out names of people named in most of the dozens of pages of attorney billings provided to the union.
“At least in part, the association has prevailed,” Kurtz wrote.
Union leaders have been trying to get to the bottom of a district decision that resulted in a secret surveillance camera being placed in the ceiling of a Cascade High School teacher’s classroom in the spring of 2007. Teacher Kay Powers was suspended and then fired for helping students publish an underground student newspaper with district equipment.
She later was reinstated and given back pay after reaching a settlement with the district. She retired from the district in June.
Shortly before the agreement, union leaders said they planned to produce an expert to testify that he believed a camera had been placed in Powers’ classroom. District officials initially denied, but later acknowledged, a camera was used.
Among other things, the union was seeking more information about a Jan. 11, 2007, meeting between former Superintendent Carol Whitehead, then deputy superintendent Karst Brandsma and attorney Valerie Hughes of Perkins Coie in Seattle. Discussion during that meeting focused on “data and strategy” related to the investigation of the Free Stehekin underground newspaper, according to district records.
Kurtz wrote that the documents he ordered released might not be that helpful.
“Whatever anyone’s expectations, no obvious ‘smoking gun’ was observed in the documents reviewed by this court,” Kurtz wrote. “The documents may be more destined to induce slumber than to excite or inform.”
Mitch Cogdill, a lawyer representing the teachers union, said he has yet to see the documents to determine their value. It’s unclear when the documents will be turned over.
Union officials said the lawsuit is less about the camera than it is about how the district interprets what should be provided under public records laws.
“We are hoping it’s all done, but a funny thing happened on the way to the forum,” Cogdill said. “They have a strong burden of convincing us and the public. ... They want us to accept things as an article of faith after they breached that trust over and over regarding the camera issue.”
School district officials said they provided 11,523 pages of documents and tried to comply with the spirit of the public records law while protecting individuals’ legal rights to privacy.
“It is my understanding that the district has followed the principles of federal and state laws which require us to protect student and staff privacy,” said Superintendent Gary Cohn, who took over July 1. “This order seems to change that privacy protection for students and staff.”
A follow-up hearing, including debate on who will pay attorney fees, is scheduled for Oct. 9. District officials didn’t receive a copy of the ruling until 4 p.m. Wednesday and were still reviewing it Wednesday evening. No decision has been made on whether the district will ask the judge to reconsider or will seek an appeal.
Cohn said the district looks forward to receiving some clarification to get “a clearer understanding of how this ruling affects the district’s response to future requests for records that include personally identifiable information about students and staff.”
Cogdill said the district instead could have referred to people by their initials or first names in the attorney bills and the union was not seeking information that would fall under attorney-client privilege.
Kurtz wrote that when public business is done openly, it can have a cleansing effect, which can wipe away a climate of distrust.
“Where appropriate under this decision and the law: ‘Let the sunshine in,’ ” he wrote.
Eric Stevick: 425-339-3446, stevick@heraldnet.com.
|
COMMENTS | Be the first to comment
Log in or register to post a new comment.
To read other terms and conditions, click here