Observer-Reporter, June 18, 2011:
![]()
Let’s take a closer look at this story. The Observer article is shown below in black print. Additional information in red and blue.
Let’s take a closer look at this story. The Observer article is shown below in black print. Additional information in red and blue.
As you read this, remember, Fort Cherry administrators are paid with our tax dollars.
The Right-to-Know Law specifically notes that all manner of financial records are public information.
It is our right as taxpayers to be assured that the Fort Cherry administrators are being paid the amount of salary that has been publicly advertised.
Judge upholds open records decision
Washington County Judge John DiSalle has upheld a decision by the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records forcing Fort Cherry School District to hand over copies of W-2 and 1099 forms for four of its employees to a Bulger woman.
However, the judge's May 11 ruling is only a formality, as the district and Susan Coppola of Bulger have reportedly reached an agreement to resolve the matter.
This is not just a formality. By ruling in favor of the Office of Open Record’s final determination, Judge DiSalle has ruled that the W-2s are public information.
![]()
The district appealed the decision, but the office again found in Coppola's favor.
![]()
The district then filed an appeal with Washington County Court, in which arguments were made that the open records office erred in its final decision not only because it snubbed the Monroe County Court decision but also because Coppola failed to appeal the initial denial within the 15-day deadline.
![]()
This case has set Office of Open Records precedent and is law.
If the decision to uphold the Final Determination stands up to further appeal by the district, a citizen will be able to make an official Right-to-Know request for the W-2s and Fort Cherry will be required to release the W-2s by law.
The Observer-Reporter states that the district and Ms. Coppola reached an “agreement”.
Officially, Ms. Coppola withdrew from the appeal for the W-2s and submitted a separate, second request for compensation paid to Dinnen, Sroka, Craig, and Smith. This separate, second request involved no “agreement”.
The Observer failed to report that Ms. Coppola withdrew from the appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, but the Fort Cherry School Board permitted the solicitor to continue with the appeal.
The solicitor’s objective: to set precedent so the district would NEVER be required to release the W-2s.
On Feb. 18, 2010, Coppola filed a formal request with the district for the 2008 and 2009 W-2 and 1099 payroll tax reporting forms of Superintendent Dr. Robert Dinnen, business manager Paul Sroka, director of curriculum Trish Craig and director of special education Dawn Smith under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law.
Coppola did not specify the reason for her request in her filing.
The RTK law states that a citizen does not need to provide a reason for a request:
Section 703. Written requests.
A written request for access to records may be submitted in person, by mail, by e-mail, by facsimile or, to the extent provided by agency rules, any other electronic means. A written request must be addressed to the
open-records officer designated pursuant to section 502. Employees of an agency shall be directed to forward requests for records to the open-records officer. A written request should identify or describe the
records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested and shall include the name and address to which the agency should address its response. A written request need not include any explanation of the requester’s reason for requesting or intended use of the records unless otherwise required by law.
Pennsylvania’s New Right to Know Law
Act 3 of 2008, as signed by Gov. Edward G. Rendell on February 14, 2008
Effective January 1, 2009
Sroka, who also serves as the district's open records officer, notified Coppola Feb. 22 that regarding the W-2 forms, he was "invoking a 30-day extension for legal review, possible redaction and location of any records that may have been moved off-site due to a noncurrent status."
Such a review and extension are authorized under the law, the district contends.
In regard to the 1099 forms, which are issued to independent contractors, Sroka informed Coppola that her request was denied because the records did not exist.
Sroka denied the 1099s existed but would not provide an affidavit. Why? Keep in mind that according to Fort Cherry’s Act 93 agreement, the administration is entitled to the following:
· 5% of grant money obtained by the district
· bonus salary for doctorate degrees
· generous insurance buy-out
That information, and any other type of extra compensation, could appear on a 1099 form.
The district solicitor is well aware that an affidavit should have been provided.
Could it be that the Open Records Officer failed to provide the affidavit so as to avoid perjuring himself?
From the Final Determination issued by the OOR (Coppola v Fort Cherry, AP 2010-0248):
The District also denied the Request as to the 1099’s stating that they do not exist.
However, the District did not provide the OOR with an affidavit made under penalty of perjury establishing that fact. As such, it has not provided sufficient factual support regarding the requested records to support a denial of access.
The District is required to provide the Requester with an affidavit signed under penalty of perjury that the requested1099’s do not exist in its custody, possession, or control.
FINAL DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER OF :
SUSAN COPPOLA
v.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Docket No.: AP 2010-0248
A little more than a week later, Coppola received written notice that her request for the W-2 forms was also being denied because they are not considered "public records" under the law.
Sroka also explained that the W-2s contained personal financial information such as Social Security and employer identification numbers that were exempt from release.
The Right-to-Know Law specifically notes that all manner of financial records are public information.
Information such as Social Security and employee identification numbers can easily be redacted using a black marker. The district has eagerly redacted information on other RTK requests; there is no reason that information can’t be redacted from a W-2 form.
Coppola subsequently appealed the district's decision with the Office of Open Records.
The district responded by citing a 2009 Monroe County court decision that found an employee's W-2 form was protected from disclosure.
Despite the district's arguments, the open records office granted Coppola's request on April 21.
Fort Cherry cited a 2009 Monroe County court decision, but the district did not supply any legal support for its argument.
More from Coppola v Fort Cherry, AP 2010-0248:
The OOR has previously determined that W-2 tax forms are public record and
subject to release. See Campbell vs. Berwick Area School District AP 2009-0212,
Campbell vs. Souderton OOR Dkt. 2009-0269, Zeldenrust vs. Pocono Mountain Sch. District OOR Dkt. 2009-0305, Campbell vs. Souderton Area School District OOR Dkt. 2009-0269, Campbell vs. Colonial School District OOR Dkt. 2009-0350, Campbell vs. Boyertown School District OOR Dkt. 2009-0230.
The legal analysis and holding in these Final Determinations are incorporated and adopted herein as OOR precedent.
While the District argues that the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas
decision should be binding precedent here, it supplies no legal support for such an argument. As the District is not located in Monroe County, the OOR is not bound by the Court’s decision in this appeal.
FINAL DETERMINATION IN THE MATTER OF :
SUSAN COPPOLA
v.
FORT CHERRY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Docket No.: AP 2010-0248
As stated in the synopsis of the Monroe Decision (full copy of synopsis at the end of the post), the Court was “constrained to find sufficient proof that this request relates in any way to the purpose of the RTKL, i.e. transparency of government”.
Fort Cherry based its argument on a case that does not relate in any way to the purpose of the Right-to-Know Law.
The Court appears to have factored into its decision the purpose of Mr. Campbell’s request, belied by the fact that he requested the W-2 for only one named employee of the school district. “If instead of singling out one employee’s personal financial information, Requester would have legitimately sought information that would expose the business operations of Agency, this court may have ruled differently. After examining the record in this case, we are constrained to find sufficient proof that this request relates in any way to the purpose of the RKTL, i.e. transparency of government.”
SYNOPSIS
Simon Campbell v. Pocono Mountain School District
Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County, No. 6384 CIVIL 2009
The district appealed the decision, but the office again found in Coppola's favor.
The district did not submit another appeal to the Office of Open Records; they submitted a “Petition for Reconsideration” which was denied.
The district then filed an appeal with Washington County Court, in which arguments were made that the open records office erred in its final decision not only because it snubbed the Monroe County Court decision but also because Coppola failed to appeal the initial denial within the 15-day deadline.
This appeal was filed with the Court of Common Pleas. The “arguments” most likely appear in the brief that the solicitor filed with the Court on 11/29/10 as stated in his letter to Judge DiSalle (above).
As for the district’s claim that the Office of Open Records snubbed the Monroe Court Decision, keep this in mind:
1. Fort Cherry failed to provide legal support for their argument.
2. Fort Cherry is not located in Monroe County so the Office of Open Records is not bound by the Monroe Court’s decision.
3. The Monroe Court did not release the requested W-2 because the purpose of the request was to single out one employee’s personal financial information. But the Court may have ruled in favor of releasing the W-2s had the court found sufficient proof that the request related in any way to the purpose of the Right-to-Know Law, i.e. transparency of government.
And finally, the district’s argument that Ms. Coppola failed to appeal within the 15-day deadline is difficult to believe. The Office of Open Records is very strict regarding deadlines and will not follow-up on an appeal if a deadline is missed.
So, now that Fort Cherry has lost its appeal to the Court of Common Pleas, will the public be privy to the actual salary paid to the Fort Cherry administrators?
Not just yet. . .
As in the Tribune Review right-to-know case (a link to the Trib case appears at the bottom of this post), the Fort Cherry School Board has given the solicitor permission to move the appeal to the next level, Commonwealth Court.
The Fort Cherry School Board approved expending our tax dollars to keep taxpayers in the dark.
The solicitor will be paid with our tax dollars. Legal fees for right-to-know work are paid over and above the solicitor’s yearly retainer.
· The district solicitor advises the board how to proceed in every right-to-know request, and the taxpayers pay for it.
· When the district solicitor advises Fort Cherry to appeal a ruling from the Office of Open Records, the solicitor creates more business for himself, and the taxpayers pay for it.
Taxpayer money is used to pay the salaries and bonuses of the administration.
The public has the RIGHT-TO-KNOW exactly how taxpayer money is spent.
Will the Fort Cherry School Board continue to approve the use of taxpayer money for legal appeals to conceal how the district is spending OUR PUBLIC FUNDS?
For more information on this topic and the Trib RTK case,
please visit http://fortcherryinfomore.blogspot.com/
