At a cost of about three or four college educations at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Sumner County's school officials and school board just got educated about the state's public records law.
And Sumner County taxpayers paid the tuition.
On Nov. 13, Sumner County Judge Dee Gay ruled that the school district violated the Tennessee Public Records Act when it denied a citizen's request to see a copy of its public records policy.
Deborah FisherThe school district had argued that it could reject any request to see public records if the person made the request by email or by phone, which is what Joelton resident Ken Jakes did.
It took 20 months and a citizen who was willing to spend more than $10,000 of his own money on an attorney to tell the school district what should have been obvious all along: It can't make up local rules to block access to public records. The judge ordered the school district to change its illegal public records policy to comply with the law.
"It is a policy that is most convenient to the Defendant without concern to the accessibility and convenience to the public," Gay wrote. "Further, when the individual options (for making a request) are analyzed under the law individually, they present options that are not favored by statute or case law."
The judge recommended that the new policy "be expanded to accommodate the methods of modern communication."
In 2008, the Tennessee legislature improved the public records law to get rid of some of the nonsense that was needlessly blocking access to government records and frustrating citizens who were trying to know what their government was doing.
First, lawmakers added language that public records should be provided "promptly" when a citizen asks. But if that isn't possible - such as if the request is for a large number of documents or a question exists about confidentiality - lawmakers said a government entity could take seven business days to get back with the requester. Even then, a government entity could simply tell the requester how much longer it would take to compile the records.
There are more than 350 exemptions to the Tennessee Public Records Act. But the record requested by Jakes - a one-page school board records policy - was not exempt and the request was not large.
In fact, the policy was available online if you knew where to look. The judge noted that the school district could have simply emailed back a link.
Another step the legislature took in 2008 was to establish the Office of Open Records Counsel. Many states have them, often called an ombudsman. The idea is to help citizens gain access to public documents when they are having difficulty and provide guidance on the law to government entities so they can comply. They usually are a way to settle disputes and misunderstandings before a costly lawsuit is sought.
The trial in July raised questions about the effectiveness of the 2008 changes.
For example, the school district's community relations official, Jeremy Johnson, testified that he often provided public records to journalists who emailed and asked for them. But if someone mentioned the Tennessee Public Records Act in their email request, he told them they had to mail a written request through the U.S. Postal Service or appear in person in Gallatin before he would respond.
This is just bizarre. Whatever Johnson's reasoning, surely it was not the intent of the legislature that mentioning the Tennessee Public Records Act would make it harder and take longer to see a readily available, non-exempt public record.
Another question raised was the role of the Office of Open Records Counsel.
The school board's attorney, Jim Fuqua, testified that after a 45-minute phone conversation with then-Open Records Counsel Elisha Hodge, he thought the school district was on solid ground to refuse a request that came by email.
We don't know what Hodge, a public records expert, actually said to Fuqua because she was not called to testify. Nor did she provide a written advisory opinion on the topic, which Fuqua could have requested after his conversation with her.
But the bigger question is whether the legislature's intent in creating the Office of Open Records Counsel was carried out in this situation. Was the Open Records counsel able to, as the law instructs, "assist with the resolution of issues concerning the open records law" in a way that could have helped Sumner County taxpayers avoid huge legal bills? If not, why not?
I don't know the answer. But considering the expense of this case, it might be worth asking the question. Was this an issue that truly needed to go to court?
What we do know is that the school district spent about $83,000 through February for its defense, and still hasn't gotten bills for nine months of work, including work during the trial.
Deborah Fisher is executive director of Tennessee Coalition for Open Government. Contact her at www.tcog.info.