NRC keeps us in the dark

The feds should reveal the nature of a security violation at TMI.

Last week, when the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported a security violation at Three Mile Island, a spokesman for the agency described the preliminary findings as “greater than very low safety significance.”

That, of course, is a semantic gyration that seems to be endemic to government, or at least government how it’s run these days.

Parsing the phrase, you can rest assured that the unnamed violation was not of “very low safety significance.” Other than that, who knows? Was it a slight annoyance? Was it something that should cause grave concern? Was it head-for-the-hills-the-world’s-going-to-end alarming?

You can’t know. You can only tell, from that cryptic phrase, that it was “greater than very low safety significance,” whatever that means.

It’s impossible to judge what level of safety significance the violation represented because neither the NRC nor the operators of TMI will say.

Officials said releasing that information could result in the disclosure of safeguarded information — which seems to imply that whatever happened was a good deal “greater than very low safety significance.”

Basically, they aren’t telling us what happened for our own good. That’s certainly reassuring.

How many times have we traveled this road? How many times has the government or some large corporation refused to release information, citing the need for secrecy, when it turned out the release of the information only protected the government or large corporation from embarrassment? You need a supercomputer to tally that count.

The NRC did say that the violation didn’t jeopardize health and safety. Citing “local sensitivities,” the NRC spokeswoman did say that the violation didn’t involve “inattentive security officers.”

“Inattentive security officers,” of course, means security officers napping on the job. Again, parsing that phrase, a person who is asleep is inattentive so it is accurate. But sleeping on the job seems a little more serious than, say, reading a magazine or playing a video game.

The “inattentive security officers” were at the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, contract employees of Wackenhut, who have since been replaced with company staffers.

Exelon also owns TMI, and this violation occurred when the same contractor provided security there.

Since then, TMI has also replaced the contract employees with its own staff.

The parallels are interesting, to say the least.

The only difference is we know what happened at Peach Bottom, thanks to a whistleblower who captured sleeping security guards on video.

We don’t know what happened at TMI.

And we may never know. The experience of the whistleblower at Peach Bottom — he lost his job when Exelon got rid of Wackenhut and he wasn’t hired by the company as part of its own security force — doesn’t do much to encourage people to publicly report misfeasance.

Security is a paramount concern at nuclear power plants, and people deserve to know whether government regulators are taking adequate steps to safeguard the public.

Without knowing specifically what the violation is, how are we to judge that? There should be a way for the NRC to inform the public without jeopardizing security at the plant.

The public’s right to know is, to paraphrase the NRC, greater than very low significance

ShareThis

State Auditor General Jack Wagner took issue last week with Peters Township School District’s separation agreement with its superintendent, saying such agreements are a “waste of taxpayer dollars.”

The school board recently approved an agreement with Superintendent Timm Mackley, releasing him from the last two years of his four-year contract. He will receive a full salary and retain his title until he gets another job or until July, whichever comes sooner, plus a $123,573 cash payout.

His duties have been taken over by former West Mifflin Superintendent Joseph Dimperio, who will serve on a temporary basis at $500 a day until a replacement is found.

But, while most parents seemed satisfied with the separation agreement, Mr. Wagner criticized the expenditure of public funds for a private agreement.

He said there should not have been a confidentiality agreement with Dr. Mackley. “The public has a right to know what happened,” Mr. Wagner said.

In previous audits of the Mt. Lebanon and Derry Township school districts, Mr. Wagner was critical of the secretive nature of their early buyout agreements, advising school districts to avoid confidentiality agreements and long-term contracts with new superintendents.

Mr. Wagner reiterated his call for the General Assembly to craft legislation that would address what is becoming an ever-increasing trend among school districts.

In November 2006, Pittsburgh Public Schools paid $213,000 in a similar private agreement with a deputy superintendent.
“The bottom line is, this is public money,” Mr. Wagner said. “There should be sunshine, there should be transparency where there is public money.”

superintendent search team that hired the “optimal” candidate, and his role on the school board when the district won several high-profile awards.

• Private companies doing government business are subject to new open records law.

Buried in the revised Right to Know law signed recently by Gov. Edward Rendell is a provision that opens the records of some private companies to the public.

The new law, which goes into effect in January, assumes that most government records are public, whereas the previous law placed this burden of proof on the business or individual requesting the information.

As it turns out, many private companies perform government functions under contract to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Some of the things that private companies do for the state include running computer systems and Web sites, and building and repairing roads and bridges. The revised law says private entities that have contracts to perform a government function will be required to disclose their records.

No one knows yet how the courts and the Office of Open Records are going to interpret the revised law. But it is expected that private companies performing government functions will have to reveal only those records related to the work they are doing for the state.

Diana Leech, Meyer Unkovic & Scott

• Police chief ordered to withhold record.

When Wilkins resident John Frank visited Wilkins police department last week seeking a copy of a police report from 1999 that listed a phone call he made to the department concerning sewer problems he was experiencing at his home, he was “outright denied” a copy, said Frank’s attorney John Linkowsky.

“It was the strangest thing. He had requested copies of the police report several months ago…. When he went last week to pick up a copy, he was refused the report,” Linkowsky said.
Wilkins police Chief Keith Guthrie said township officials instructed him not to turn over a copy of the report, as he would do in most cases.

Guthrie said when a resident requests a copy of a report, if someone in the department is available, all the resident has to do is pay a $15 fee and verbally request a copy in order to receive it.

In this case, Guthrie said, he was “ordered not to give it to him,” receiving no explanation as to why.

“The way I look at it, everybody should be treated the same,” he said.

The chief said he “felt Frank should be able to have the document” because the Open Records Law states police reports should be made open to the public.

Linkowsky agreed.

“This is absolutely not right. This is a public record.”

Frank filed a lawsuit against the township in 2006, seeking damages for sewer problems at his home in 2004, which the case states township officials were aware of.

Linkowsky said Frank being denied the records probably had something to do with the lawsuit.

“I’m 100 percent certain the township’s initial refusal was caused by that lawsuit.”

Township solicitor Gary Matta said this is not the case.

“Anytime, with the public records act, you can give it to them immediately, or you can have time to make copies or do whatever you like…. There’s litigation going on and the insurance company’s counsel had asked me to make sure if there was a request for any documents, that he was aware of it.”

Matta said there were previous issues where, “Mr. Frank’s attorney directly contacted the municipality and talked with the adverse party that has council.”

Because of this issue, he wanted to “make certain that they were public documents.”

Matta said he forwarded a copy of the document to Linkowsky and the law was never violated.

Rebecca Bradley, township manager, said township officials “typically try to be as accommodating as possible” and that this “isolated incident has more to do with the attorney’s handling of the case.”

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said township officials have five business days to respond to a request for public documents and are allowed to charge a reasonable fee.

“Routinely, with public documents, you’re required to respond as quickly as possible, but they do have up to five days to make this response.”

ShareThis

The workshop is designed to help elected and appointed municipal and county officials gain a better understanding of how the Open Records Law has changed due to Act 3 of 2008 and what steps local government officials will need to take to be in compliance with the new law when it goes into effect January 1, 2009.

This class will help attendees gain a better understanding of their responsibilities under the newly revised Open Records Law, including how to better manage access to local government records, what procedures local governments need to have in place to respond to requests, which records are public and which are not, required time frames for responding to requests, how the new appeals process will work, how to develop an open records policy for local government, how open records fees will be set, and the consequences of releasing confidential information.

Course Outline
Participants will discuss and examine the following subject areas:

• What is the Open Records Act?

• What has changed with the new legislation?

• Tips for municipalities handling requests

Who Should Attend
Township, borough, city and county officials and administrators who have a role in maintaining and providing access to public records.

Remaining workshop dates and locations
April 8: Westmoreland County

April 8: Cambria County

April 14: Bedford County

April 14: Centre County

April 16: York County

April 16: Cumberland County

April 23: Luzerne County

April 23: Lackawanna County

April 24: Bradford County

April 24: Schuylkill County

April 28: Lehigh County

April 28: Bucks County

April 29: Chester County

April 29: Lancaster County

May 1: Lycoming County

May 1: Huntingdon County

Instructors
Holly Fishel,
Director of Research and Policy Development
PA State Association of Township Supervisors

Dean Fernsler,
Consultant
PA State Association of Township Supervisors

Elam Herr,
Assistant Executive Director
PA State Association of Township Supervisors

Doug Hill,
Executive Director
County Commissioners Association of PA

Teri Henning,
Chief Counsel
PA Newspaper Association

Morning Schedule
(Westmoreland, Bedford, York, Bradford, Luzerne, Lehigh, Chester, Lycoming)

8:30 a.m. Registration
9:00 a.m. Program Begins
12:00 noon Adjourn

Evening Schedule
(Cambria, Centre, Cumberland, Schuylkill, Lackawanna, Bucks, Lancaster, Huntingdon)

5:30 p.m. Registration
6:00 p.m. Program Begins
9:00 p.m. Adjourn

Registration fee: 35 per person (includes tuition and materials)

For more information, go to the brochure and registration form.

ShareThis

WTAE-TV was one of the 35 winners of the 67th annual award. The station was cited for “’Fight for Open Records,’ a series of reports about improprieties in Pennsylvania’s state-run student loan agency – reports[that] were made possible by a successful – and well-explained – legal battle to obtain the agency’s ostensibly public records.”

The Peabody Award, which is based at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication, is a big deal.

“The Peabody Awards, which reward the best of broadcasting and are administered by the University of Georgia’s journalism school, are universally respected for their serious, thoughtful choices.”

So hats off to WTAE.

Other recipients included “The Colbert Report,” Comedy Central’s cable-news satire, “A Journey Across Afghanistan: Opium and Roses,” a documentary from Bulgaria’s Balkan News Corporation, “Whole Lotta Shakin,” the Texas Heritage Music Foundation’s public-radio series chronicling rockabilly music, and “Univision’s Ya Es Hora,” a public-service campaign that taught legal aliens how to apply for American citizenship.

Also winners were three extraordinary pieces on the war in Iraq: “Wounds of War – The Long Road Home for Our Nation’s Veterans,” a series by ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff about the struggles of veterans dealing with severe war injuries and stress; “CBS News Sunday Morning: The Way Home,” Kimberly Dozier’s story about two women veterans who lost limbs in Iraq; and “The Killings in Haditha,” a Scott Pelley 60 Minutes report. Both Woodruff and Dozier were severely wounded in Iraq. Finally, “Taxi to the Dark Side,” a documentary about an Afghani cabdriver who died in U.S. military custody, won a Peabody after capturing an Oscar last month.

Fight for Open Records, WTAE-TV’s “relentless legal campaign to obtain public records of a state-run student-loan program netted evidence of financial misconduct and pushed the state to rewrite an antiquated right-to-know law.”

ShareThis

Last fall, the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association awarded the Benjamin Franklin Award for Excellence to reporter Jan Murphy and legal counsel Craig J. Staudenmaier of the Harrisburg Patriot-News for their work on the legislative pay raise, the still-unfolding bonus scandal, the time and money spent on the resulting legal actions – and, of course, PHEAA.

Established in 1998, the Franklin Award recognizes an individual who has performed an outstanding service or accomplishment to his/her newspaper; to the newspaper industry in general; to his/her local community; or to the PNA, that reflected positively on the newspaper industry in Pennsylvania.

Last week, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review announced that its affiliate, WTAE-TV, had won the Freedom of Information Award, a national honor, for its investigation into – yup – PHEAA.

WTAE-TV and investigative reporter Jim Parsons have won a prestigious national award for “pushing open the front door” of the state-run student loan agency, which cost taxpayers more than $1 million in frivolous spending.

The station, Parsons, news director Bob V. Longo, photographer Kendall Cross and editor Mike Lazorko won the Freedom of Information Award, a special award given annually by Investigative Reporters and Editors Inc. to individuals or organizations whose significant actions further open records or open government.

“It’s one of those awards that … speaks to what we do. We ask questions, we are told no, we fight to get the answer and the answer is so impactful that it changes people’s lives … it changed the law,” Longo said.

The award carries with it an IRE Medal, the highest honor the organization can bestow for investigative reporting. MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Salt Lake Tribune and Bay Area News Group were other medal winners.

The honor is for an 18-month series of reports Parsons did on the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

“Parsons pushed open the front door of a closed government agency … revealing glaring examples of wasteful and abusive spending of taxpayer money,” the judges wrote.

They said that Parsons took his advocacy on behalf of open records beyond reporting.

“He organized the first of four statewide forums on the Pennsylvania’s Open Records Act and has been instrumental in obtaining legislative support in behalf of a new state Right to Know law,” the judges said.

ShareThis

… We want to know what our politicians are doing and, of equal import, why they are doing it. That’s why journalists and community activists alike remain ever vigilant on the lookout for attempts to revise state laws to allow more secrecy and for efforts to skirt the existing law. …

Locally, this newspaper’s most recent test of open records laws was a comprehensive look at public employees’ salaries. Our work revealed that many rank-and-file government employees are underpaid and that some at the top reaches of government are earning handsome sums that may or may not be justified.

Without access to public records, these stories could not have been written. But getting the records wasn’t easy. A significant number of local governments ignored the requests or provided partial or incomplete data. Many had to be contacted multiple times and threatened with litigation. Now, imagine that a regular citizen is attempting to gain salary data or any other public record. The obstacles placed in their path, whether in a deliberate effort to thwart the law or through ignorance, would discourage all but the most adamant record-seekers.

Until all politicians wake to the realization that open government is the best way to do business, we’ll be watching closely and shining a light on any transgressions that we uncover. Keep government in the sunshine.

From New Jersey . . .

Two New Jersey legislators are looking to boost public access to government by overhauling current laws.

“This new law will bring open public meetings into the 21st century and make sure they are uniformly conducted across the state,” said Sen. Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen).

The measure would make gatherings of public officials through e-mail, instant messaging or text messaging a “meeting” subject to public records requests.

It would require that government meetings be audio recorded and the records kept for seven years and made available to the public. It would also require that governing bodies post meeting notices on their Web site if one exists.

Penalties for violations of the law would increase ten-fold, from $100 for the first offense to $1,000, and from $500 for the second offense to $5,000. An appointed member of a public body could also be removed for two or more violations of the public meetings law under the measure.

A second bill would cap the cost for copies for most government documents requested under the Open Public Records Act at 10 cents for a letter-size copy and 15 cents for a legal-size copy.

Assemblyman Joseph Cryan (D-Union), the bill sponsor, said the problem of excessive fees came to his attention when a couple were charged $1 a page for copies at a county office to get information to prevent foreclosure of their home.

Open government advocates such as Wayne Tarus said while some achievements have been made in the realm of open government, more must be done.

“The war is far from over,” Tarus said Tuesday. “Unfortunately we also have our public officials that tend to feed at the public trough. … To them, ignorance is bliss.”

From Montgomery County . . .

So much for that so-called “transparency” (I hate that stupid word) promised by the much-touted bipartisan government headed by Republican James R. Matthews and Democrat Joseph M. Hoeffel.

My colleague Carl Hessler last week came across a grievance hearing held on behalf of a county employee axed last June for, among other reasons, alleged sexual harassment.

County officials, miffed that Hessler not only found the hearing but stayed to cover it, later told him he would have to get the final ruling from someone else because they are prohibited from speaking about “personnel” matters.

Taxpayers have a right to know that all is not cream and sugar with the county, particularly when it could cost them extra tax dollars later in legal fees.

Rather than being forthright, the county is choosing to hide its dirty linen behind that old secret personnel door.

Guess the only things that are transparent are their empty campaign promises.

ShareThis

Jefferson was no fan of intrusive Revolutionary War era media. He was a constant target of scurrilous coverage. But Jefferson also cherished the role of a free press and its checks on government authority and secrecy.

It’s in that spirit that Sunshine Week exists.

• A citizen’s right to know and journalists’ rights to report are threatened every day, say the organizers of Sunshine Week, who planned the weeklong program to highlight freedom of information issues and emphasize the importance of open government. The Student Press Law Center is celebrating Sunshine Week with a series of reports on access issues — including how student journalists can encourage open government and use open records to expand their journalistic horizons and let the sunshine in.

Campus safety has become an important concern in the wake of high-profile school shootings, abductions and murders of young collegians across the nation. Access to records from your university police department or campus safety office often may be critical for accurate reporting on campus security issues.

The Student Press Law Center conducted an open records test with 21 different colleges and universities, both public and private, requesting two types of crime-related records. We followed the same procedures the SPLC recommends to all student journalists making an open records request: first calling to make a verbal request and then, if necessary, making a formal written request.

In each request we asked for two different records: a copy of the university’s crime log and incident reports for either types of crimes or specific incidents that occurred on campus. The crime log is list of police activities (which can include responding to crimes) at or near a college campus, while an incident report is a more detailed narrative of an event requiring police assistance or response.

Every state has a different law governing the type of information that must be disclosed and to whom it applies. Most of these laws will apply only to public colleges and universities; security offices at many private colleges will not be required to release more information than the [Jeanne] Clery Act mandates. This was the situation the SPLC found itself in many times in our open records test. For example, Santa Clara University and Chapman University in California, Mercyhurst College in Pennsylvania and Simmons College in Massachusetts all denied our request for incident reports.

The one notable exception was LaGrange College, a private college in Georgia, which sent us the records we requested, including incident reports; Georgia has some of the nation’s best open records laws, pertaining to campus police records, according to Frank LoMonte, executive director of the SPLC. Student journalists in Georgia and Virginia are in a unique position compared to those in other states because there are specific state laws that address access to private college police records.

• Government at all levels always leans toward conducting business behind closed doors. The reasons range from the ease of working out compromises to avoiding hurt feelings and political repercussions to making the process work faster.

The only problems - apart from its occasionally being illegal to conduct public business in private - are that it’s also undemocratic and unfair to the citizenry.

I’ve little doubt that the nation’s founders preferred a knowledgeable, informed and engaged public. They had plenty of firsthand experience with the alternatives - Star Chambers and Privy Councils that secretly conducted trials, advised royalty and set policy out of public view. (See HBO’s current mini-series, “John Adams.”)

What leads government officials high and low, then and now, to desire to operate behind closed doors and in private chats, out of sight and out of oversight? The answer is simple: Democracy is a messy, conflicting, argumentative, occasionally inefficient, and certainly challenging form of government. But civility, expediency and ease of operation are gravy, not goals, for our system of government.

Still, across the country, local government units like city councils and school boards have attempted to tidy up the process - but in the process, shutting down comment, disclosure and involvement. In recent years, for example:

• A West Virginia school board tried to prevent critics from mentioning district employees by name or job title when speaking at a board meeting. In Oklahoma, it took a federal court ruling to overturn a similar law.

• The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the right of local residents to videotape government meetings over official objections.

• Mississippi officials ordered a local public-broadcasting cameraman out of a contentious water-association meeting.

• The Los Angeles City Council adopted “rules of decorum” that, along with banning profanity, limit public speakers to one minute and require that comments be directed at the entire council, not just one official.

There can seem a certain reasonableness to limiting public debate to avoid filibusters; to restricting personal comments to avoid flaring tempers; to requiring speakers to register in advance for scheduling ease. But all too often the effect, intended or not, is to preclude serious counter-arguments, to blunt frank criticism of elected or appointed officials, or to discourage public discourse.

When public records are involved - particularly those in the courts and criminal justice system - we must remember they aren’t open merely to satisfy the curious.

In repressive regimes, access to government information is among the first limitations imposed. It may be more than uncomfortable to have arrest records and “mug shots” available for public disclosure - but the alternative is a system where you or I may simply “disappear” into a draconian, closed system, leaving relatives and colleagues uncertain and afraid.

But the vast majority of what our government does is not a national or personal security matter. What it does on our behalf needs to be, and to remain, public - even if it stings, even if it means long nights listening to one side or another, or casting votes at risk of one’s reelection chances to try to keep public records true to their name.

Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, 555 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001.

ShareThis

The workshop is designed to help elected and appointed municipal and county officials gain a better understanding of how the Open Records Law has changed due to Act 3 of 2008 and what steps local government officials will need to take to be in compliance with the new law when it goes into effect Jan. 1, 2009. In addition to hearing from local government representatives, this is a great opportunity for editorial staff to listen to Teri Henning discuss how the new law will impact newspapers.

For details on the next several workshops, see the following:

March 26: Crawford County

March 26: Butler County

April 1: Jefferson County

April 1: McKean County

April 8: Westmoreland County

April 8: Cambria County

The full schedule of workshops and locations:
March 26/ Crawford Co.
March 26/ Butler Co.
April 1/ Jefferson Co.
April 1/ McKean Co.
April 8/ Westmoreland Co.
April 8/ Cambria Co.
April 14/ Bedford Co.
April 14/ Centre Co.
April 16/ York Co.
April 16/ Cumberland Co.
April 23/ Luzerne Co.
April 23/ Lackawanna Co.
April 24/ Bradford Co.
April 24 / Schuylkill Co.
April 28 / Lehigh Co.
April 28 / Bucks Co.
April 29 / Chester Co.
April 29 / Lancaster Co.
May 1 / Lycoming Co.
May 1 / Huntingdon Co.

For more information, go to the brochure and registration form.

ShareThis

The Sunshine Act refers to open meetings, and it is clear that we need to focus on that issue as well as open records. As Teri Henning, General Counsel of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, notes in an editorial excerpted below – What’s wrong with the Sunshine Act? – “the main problem with the Sunshine Act is not really the Act itself. The real problem with the Act . . . is that public officials ignore it.”

It is time now –again – to focus on open meetings, so that we can have truly transparent government in Pennsylvania.

“As a lawyer for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association,” Henning writes, “I am often asked what’s wrong with Pennsylvania’s open meetings law, also called the Sunshine Act. Why is it that public officials all across the state are able to conduct so much public business behind closed doors, and without any repercussions? I talk to hundreds of reporters and editors during the course of a year about closed meetings and ‘secret’ decisions. Last month alone, our Legal Hotline received about 50 telephone calls from reporters with questions about whether agencies were complying with the Sunshine Act.

“As a result of these conversations, it has become clear that the main problem with the Sunshine Act is not really the Act itself. The real problem with the Act — and this probably won’t surprise anyone — is that public officials ignore it. The penalties under the Act are insignificant and very rarely imposed. Worse, the Pennsylvania courts have repeatedly permitted public agencies to ignore the Act’s requirements by holding that agencies can ‘cure’ Sunshine Act violations. This means that they can discuss and decide matters in private, in violation of the Act, and as long as they ‘redo’ their vote in public, their decision can stand. But this misses the whole point of the Sunshine Act.

“The purpose of the Sunshine Act is to allow the public to witness agency decisions and, with limited exceptions, the discussions leading up to those decisions. Allowing agencies to “cure” violations so easily deprives the public of any ability to understand how decisions were reached. And it provides very little incentive for agencies to follow the strict requirements of the Act.

“It has become obvious that the only hope for stopping these practices is to amend the Act to specifically prohibit them, and to strengthen the penalty provisions to create a real disincentive to violating the Act.

“Public officials are making critical decisions and committing your money to projects every day. They decide the salaries and benefits of public employees. They decide how much your local taxes are going to be. They decide when it is necessary to commit millions of dollars to a new high school, and they decide when and how much to pay to settle a lawsuit. Too often, the public is cut out of vital discussions and decisions. It’s time to change that.”

ShareThis

The newspaper alleges the university committed numerous violations in its response to requests for documents related to the school’s decision last fall to retroactively award a master’s of business administration degree to Mylan Inc. executive Heather Bresch, daughter of West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin.

Yesterday, attorneys representing the Post-Gazette mailed notices of its intention to file the lawsuit to WVU President Michael Garrison and West Virginia Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw Jr.

West Virginia law requires that parties intending to sue a state agency give the head of the agency and the state attorney general 30 days’ notice before the lawsuit can be filed in court.

The Post-Gazette made three requests for documents. The first was submitted Dec. 21, the day the newspaper published a story questioning the way the university went about granting the M.B.A. degree to Ms. Bresch nearly a decade after she left the program. WVU records had showed that Ms. Bresch, a high school classmate and former business associate of Mr. Garrison, had completed only about half of the credits the graduate program required.

Requests for additional records were made on Jan. 18 and Jan. 23.

“The university’s responses to these requests have been tardy, incomplete and disingenuous,” the suit states.

Mr. Garrison’s e-mail, cell phone and landline records were among the documents that were improperly withheld, according to the complaint. Some of his records, which the university said it did not possess, were included in files of other university officials whose records were turned over to the newspaper.

The only record of usage for Mr. Garrison’s cell phone that the university produced showed the total charge for the month, without any accompanying detail, the suit states.

The university produced no landline records for Mr. Garrison and records of his appointment books were substantially redacted, according to the suit.

In its FOIA request made Jan. 18, the newspaper asked for copies of all records relating to the subject of whether Ms. Bresch fulfilled the requirements for an M.B.A. and to the decision to grant the degree.

A large portion of what was produced by the university were reprints of news stories, including those of the Post-Gazette.

In addition, “Vast swaths of the documents produced are blacked out on the ground that the material … is exempted from disclosure by the ‘internal deliberations’ exemption” of the open records law, the complaint says.

ShareThis