Letter to Sumner County Board of Education

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 32 | Comments: 0 | Views: 198
of 4
Download PDF   Embed   Report

A letter sent to the Sumner County Board of Education on behalf of the Gallatin News Examiner, Hendersonville Star News and The Tennessean on Feb. 12 urges the district to release unredacted legal bills relating to a high profile public records lawsuit.

Comments

Content

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
511 Union Street, Suite 2700
Nashville, TN 37219-8966

615.244.6380 main
615.244.6804 fax
wallerlaw.com

Robb S. Harvey
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP
615.850.8859 direct
[email protected]

February 12, 2016
Mr. Jeremy Johnson
Board and Community Relations Supervisor
Sumner County Board of Education
695 East Main Street
Gallatin, Tennessee 37066

VIA FACSIMILE (615) 451-5216

Re: Public Records Requests of Jennifer Easton and Gallatin News ExaminerlStar
NewsIThe Tennessean
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Our firm represents Jennifer Easton and the newspapers for which she reports, the
Gallatin News Examiner, Star News, and The Tennessean. I write to follow up on the responses
of the Sumner County Board of Education to Ms. Easton's Tennessee Public Records Act
("TPRA") requests.
Over the past several months, Ms. Easton has been attempting to determine the amounts
that the Sumner County Board of Education has incurred for legal services provided by the law
firm Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, LLP ("BABC") in connection with the suit filed by TPRA
requestor Ken Jakes. Ms. Easton also had requested all amounts incurred by the Board in
connection with legal services provided by BABC and Board Attorney Jim Fuqua beginning
January 2014, not just in connection with the Jakes suit. Ms. Easton's requests were for
documentation of charges, including the total hours expended, the tasks performed, the rates
being charged for services by the various attorneys on the Board's multiple matters, and
expenses billed.
The Board of Education has produced duplicate copies of heavily redacted versions of
BABC's billing statements in the Jakes case covering what appears to be two billing periods--for
work months April 2014 through February 2015, and for some period ending November 30,
2015. Blanked out on the billing statements are any description of services, task dates,
timekeeper names, number of hours billed, rates, and expenses. The Board has charged Ms.
Easton for pages with no or almost no information shown. With respect, we do not believe that
the Board's release of extremely limited information comports with either the letter or spirit of
Tennessee law. We ask that the Board reconsider its approach to refusing to release the
requested information.

4 83 1-63 62-142 1

wailer
Mr. Jeremy Johnson
February 12, 2016
Page 2

Providing public education to children and teens is one of the fundamental
responsibilities of government, and the expenditure of public monies is of great public interest.
It is critical that the public have confidence in the Sumner County Board of Education, and
promoting a culture of openness and transparency is key to creating public confidence.
Oversight and transparency are all the more important in light of my clients' reporting about Mr.
Jakes' public records lawsuit and the Board's opposition to that suit and considerable outlay.
As you know, Ms. Easton has followed up on and refined her TPRA requests, including
following up numerous times in person, by telephone and in written requests. At your
suggestion, she made another TPRA request dated January 21, 2016, to which you responded on
January 29.
While Ms. Easton's last TRPA request sought unredacted billing invoices, please allow
me to clarify her request. While the Board may be entitled to redact material covered by the
attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, neither of those permit the wholesale
redaction of all information on the billing statements with the exception of a dollar figure for fees
and expenses. For example, an entry such as "Attendance at Jakes trial" on July 30, 2015 (one of
the dates of the trial) by X Attorney for Y hours at $Z/hour does not disclose any confidences
which arguably might be protected. That is just a hypothetical example--since Ms. Easton has
not seen the statements--but one which we suspect is replicated throughout the billing statements.
Likewise, expenses that have been billed to a governmental entity are of public interest and are
subject to disclosure. Respectfully, who on the Board or its staff made the decision to redact and
withhold this information? Where is the oversight for the Board's actions, and who is
responsible for providing that oversight?
Ms. Easton and the newspapers respectfully submit that transparency and openness
require more. The public monies that the Board has chosen to spend in opposing a public
records request, the number of hours billed, the billing rates, the particular expenses, and the
non-confidential tasks (allowing only limited redaction) are all subject to the Tennessee Public
Records Act.
The Tennessee Public Records Act is among the broadest in the country. It provides:
"All state, county and municipal records shall, at all times during business hours, ..... be open for
personal inspection by any citizen of this state, and those in charge of the records shall not refuse
such right of inspection to any citizen, unless otherwise provided by state law." Tenn. Code
Annotated §10-7-503(2)(A). The Tennessee Supreme Court has been one of the most vigilant in
the country in protecting the public's right of access, emphasizing the legislative mandate to

4831-6362-1421

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

wailer
Mr. Jeremy Johnson
February 12, 2016
Page 3

"interpret the terms of the Act liberally to enforce the public interest in open access to the records
of state, county and municipal governmental entities." 1
The Board of Education's generalized reference to the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine to justify its blanket redactions does not comport with the Tennessee Public
Records Act. We wish to give the Board an opportunity to provide the information requested, or
to justify its actions, so that its actions will not be deemed to be a willful violation of Teimessee
law. Such an action is, at least in our view, unnecessary if the Board will view its obligations
consistent with the Tennessee Public Records Act.
In light of the statutory mandate in favor of openness, the significant public interest and
policy issues concerning the expenditure of public funds earmarked for education, and the failure
of the Sumner County Board of Education to comply with the letter or spirit of the Tennessee
Public Records Act, we make the following requests. Please look into this matter personally. If
the Board believes that some limited redaction is necessary to preserve legitimately protectable
interests, we are more than willing to consider that position.
My clients have already been charged for an over-redacted set of public records. Please
do not begin another redaction process without providing a reasonable estimate of the expense to
provide copies, which must comport with TPRA requirements. Upon receipt of your estimate,
my clients will decide whether they wish to be provided with a copy of the records by the Board,
in which case reasonable, limited expenses may be charged; or, my clients may choose to
inspect, in which case charges may not be assessed. (Office of Open Records Counsel Opinion
08-14 (Nov. 13, 2008)). In addition, please let us know what steps will be taken to prevent this
situation from recurring. This request is made on behalf of my clients, their readers, and all
citizens of Sumner County.

I Memphis Publishing Co. v. Cherokee Children & Family Services, Inc., 87 S.W.3d 67, 74 (Tenn. 2002)
(noting that "the Act serves a crucial role in promoting accountability in government through public
oversight of governmental activities."); see also Tennessean v. Electric Power Bd. of Nashville, 979
S.W.2d 297 (Tenn. 1998); Memphis Publishing Co. v. City of Memphis, 871 S.W.2d 681 (Tenn. 1994)
("Our courts have been vigilant in upholding this clear legislative mandate, even in the face of serious
countervailing considerations."); Griffin v. City of Knoxville, 821 S.W.2d 921 (Tenn. 1991); Memphis
Publishing Co. v. Holt, 710 S.W.2d 513 (Tenn. 1986).

4831-6362-1421

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

wailer
Mr. Jeremy Johnson
February 12, 2016
Page 4

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,

Robb S. arvey
Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis LLP
cc:

Jennifer Easton (via email)
Mealand Ragland (via email)
Todd Presnell, Esq. (counsel for Board in fakes case)(via email)

4831-6362-1421

Waller Lansden Dortch & Davis, LLP

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close