Lwv Delco Report

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF DELAWARE COUNTY 610-449-0977 [email protected] www.palwv.org/delco

CITIZEN INITIATIVE FOR TRANSPARENCY: PUBLIC DOCUMENTS AUDIT FINAL REPORT June 16, 2009 Act 3 of 2008, Pennsylvania’s new Right to Know Law, was signed by Governor Edward G. Rendell on February 14, 2008 and took effect on January 1, 2009. In March 2009, the League of Women Voters of Delaware County (LWVDelco) initiated a Public Documents Audit to test the responsiveness of various government agencies in Delaware County, PA under the new law. The audit was funded by a grant received from the League of Women Voters Education Fund, one of several grants awarded to Leagues throughout the United States. The League of Women Voters of Radnor (LWVRadnor) also received a grant and conducted a separate audit within the Township. The grants covered expenses only. All the work was conducted by volunteers. This document is a report of the LWVDelco audit results. Unlike the previous law, under Act 3 citizens wanting to inspect a government document no longer have to prove that the document should be made public. Under the new Right to Know Law: 1) All records are presumed to be public records unless they fall within a specific list of exemptions. 2) The burden of proof is on the government agency to establish why a record should not be made public. 3) An agency has five business days from the time the request is received during regular business hours to respond in writing to either grant the request, deny the request or invoke a 30-day extension for certain reasons. 4) If an agency does not respond to a request in the allotted time, the request is deemed denied, and the requestor has the right to file an appeal with the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. 5) Each agency is required to appoint a Right-to-Know Officer. The Officer’s duties include: • Receive requests submitted to the agency • Direct requests to other appropriate persons within the agency or to appropriate persons in another agency • Track the agency's progress in responding to requests • Issue interim and final responses under the act Public Documents Audit Design and Process The LWVDelco Audit Committee was chaired by LWVDelco President, Lora Lavin. Committee members were League members Marita Green, Kathy Garthwaite, Helen Klussman, and Roberta Winters. For the purposes of the grant the Committee decided to audit Delaware County Government, the City of Chester (the only city in Delaware County) and a randomly selected sample of townships, boroughs and school districts as follows: Boroughs: Marcus Hook, Media, Rose Valley Townships: Aston, Haverford School Districts: Chester Upland, Garnet Valley, Springfield, Unionville-Chadds Ford Radnor Township and the Radnor School District were eliminated from the sampling process because the League of Women Voters of Radnor was conducting a separate audit of those agencies.

All requests were submitted in writing by certified mail or hand delivery. Request forms were downloaded from the agency website if available. If not available, a Standard Right to Know Request Form downloaded from the website of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records was used. Each request was addressed to the designated Right-to-Know Officer by name, if known. The subject of our request centered on compensation packages for the chief employee of each government entity. Each agency was asked to supply copies of substantially the same type of record. To verify if our request should be considered a public record, the wording was checked with Melissa Bevan Melewsky, Media Law Counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Following completion of the audit, a letter and copy of this report was sent to the head of the governing body of each agency audited describing the audit and offering to meet with them and their staff to discuss the results. Delaware County Executive Director Request Any and all documents related to the total compensation package for the Delaware County Executive Director for the fiscal year ending in 2008. Such documents include, but are not limited to, the agreement between Delaware County Council and the Delaware County Executive Director; any salary increases and/or bonuses; health care program costs including medical, prescription, dental and/or vision; costs of insurance programs and fringe benefit programs provided to the Delaware County Executive Director under the terms of any administrative contracts; any and all employee and employer contributions to a retirement plan; allowances for car, meal expenses, computer costs, and all communication costs (individual accounts for internet service, cell phone, fax, cable, etc.); membership dues and fees to all groups, clubs, and organizations paid for by Delaware County; deferred compensation such as that related to compensatory time and carry over of unused sick, personal, and vacation days; and severance pay. Township or Borough Manager Request Any and all documents related to the total compensation package for the Borough/Township Manager for the fiscal year ending in 2008. Such documents include, but are not limited to, the agreement between the Borough Council/Township Commission and the Borough/Township Manager; any salary increases and/or bonuses; health care program costs including medical, prescription, dental and/or vision; costs of insurance programs and fringe benefit programs provided to the Borough/Township Manager under the terms of any administrative contracts; any and all employee and employer contributions to a retirement plan; allowances for car, meal expenses, computer costs, and all communication costs (individual accounts for internet service, cell phone, fax, cable, etc.); membership dues and fees to all groups, clubs, and organizations paid for by the Borough/Township; deferred compensation such as that related to compensatory time and carry over of unused sick, personal, and vacation days; and severance pay. School Superintendent Request Any and all documents related to the total compensation package for the superintendent of schools for the fiscal year ending in June 2008. Such documents include, but are not limited to, the agreement between the Board of School Directors and the Superintendent; any salary increases and/or bonuses; health care program costs including medical, prescription dental and/or vision; costs of insurance programs and fringe benefit programs provided to such an administrator under the terms of any administrative contracts or the Act 93 Compensation Plan, (whichever provides greater benefit); employer contribution to a 457 plan; allowances for car, moving costs, meal expenses, computer costs, and communication costs (individual accounts for internet service, cell phone, fax, cable, etc.); membership dues and fees to all groups, clubs, and organizations paid for by the District; deferred compensation such as that related to compensatory time and carry over of unused sick, personal, and vacation days; and severance pay. Procurement Cards In some cases auditors also asked for a list of the names of individuals who have been issued procurement (credit) cards by the agency and all charges to the cards for the month of October, 2008.

2

Public Documents Audit Results DELAWARE COUNTY GOVERNMENT Kathy Garthwaite, Requestor The County’s Right to Know policy and a request form are available on the county web site. On April 6, 2009, Ms. Garthwaite hand delivered two separate requests to the Delaware County Chief Clerk, Anne Coogan, who is also the county’s designated Right to Know Officer. She received an acknowledgement letter from Ms. Coogan dated April 9. The request regarding procurement cards was answered with the information that the County does not issue procurement cards. She later received a letter, dated April 15, in response for the request for any and all documents related to the total compensation package for the Delaware County Executive Director for the fiscal year ending 2008. The letter provided responses but no documents or monetary specifics. On May 1, Garthwaite called Ms. Coogan and asked if there were any documents or contracts regarding the compensation package for the County Executive Director. Coogan said that she contacted the County Human Resources Department for this information and was told that the Executive Director was appointed for a two year term on January 7, 2008 and that there are no contracts or documents. The Audit Committee believed there must be some document relating to the appointment and salary of the Executive Director. Garthwaite again called Coogan on May 4, 2009. As Coogan was not available, her secretary offered assistance. Garthwaite asked if she would find out if Coogan has asked the Executive Director if there were any documents. Later that day Garthwaite received a voice mail from Coogan essentially restating that the Executive Director is an appointed position for two years and that there were no documents. Garthwaite called back and left a voice mail message saying she had received Coogan’s voice mail, and that it provided no new information over that already provided. Garthwaite received no written information regarding the salary of the County Executive Director, the amount contributed to the pension program, and the per employee cost of health care benefits. However, during one of the phone conversations, Ms. Coogan did give her the Executive Director’s salary verbally. CITY OF CHESTER Helen Klussman, Requestor The City of Chester’s Open Records policy and a request form are available on the City’s web site. A certified letter was send to the City of Chester Open Records Office on May 11, 2009 using the downloadable Open Records Request Form. Confirmation of receipt was dated May 12, 2009. On May 18, Ms. Klussman received a call from the City of Chester Open Records Officer, Sara Bingnear, apologizing that the request was slow to find its way to her office. Klussman received a letter dated May 20, 2009 from Bingnear with the documents requested and a copying fee of $3.00. MARCUS HOOK BOROUGH Marita Green, Requestor Opens records request information and a request form is posted on the Borough web site. A certified letter was sent to Bruce Durbin, Borough Manager/Secretary on April 9, 2009. In a phone call concerning the depth of the questions, Ms. Green found that Durbin was aware of the requirements of the law and had no trouble cooperating. In a timely fashion he sent a copy of the Budget of the Borough with his compensation underlined, and a document titled Borough Managers Compensation. A request for procurement/credit/debit card information was not submitted. MEDIA BOROUGH Roberta Winters, Requestor

3

Media Borough Open Records Policy and Procedures are available through the Borough’s website, and the universal request form of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records is the prescribed format. On April 24, 2009, two request forms were sent in an envelope by certified mail with restricted delivery to the Open Records Officer, Jeffrey A. Smith, who is also the Borough Manager. It was stamped and initialed as received on April 27th. On May 5, Ms. Winters received two letters from Mr Smith dated May 4. One contained the list of individuals issued Visa credit cards and the nature of activity for October. She was given a choice of picking up the supporting documents or having them mailed on receipt of a $5.00 payment (20 pages @ .25 each). The second letter included information about Smith’s compensation package as delineated by the request. It also offered a choice of supporting copies to be picked up or mailed on receipt of a $9.00 payment (36 pages @.25 each). Neither letter addressed any additional cost for postage. A phone number and email address were also given in the event that further questions or concerns needed to be addressed. Given the timelines and the potential additional costs for mailing of more than fifty pages, Winters called Smith on May 5th and told him that she would pick up the supporting documents rather than have them mailed as per the original instructions of the request. He gave her directions to the Borough building and also directions to the customer service window along with the name of individuals with whom she should speak. On May 6th Winters went to the Media Municipal Center administrative office and picked up the documents for which she was charged $14.00. She paid cash, was given a receipt, and received two envelopes filled with well-organized, supportive documents. ROSE VALLEY BOROUGH Roberta Winters, Requestor There was no Right to Know information to be found on the Rose Valley Borough web site. On April 22nd Ms. Winters telephoned the Borough office and asked for the name of the Right to Know Officer. There was a long pause during which no one responded and personal conversations were overheard. Winters waited for an extended period and then was disconnected. When she redialed the number, it was busy. She then called a third time and spoke to a woman. Winters requested to speak to the person in charge of Right to Know and was transferred to the Borough Manager, Ms. Paula Healy. Ms. Healy identified herself as the Right to Know Officer. When asked if the Borough had a specific procedure, Winters was told to use the Standard Right to Know Request Form. The completed form was mailed certified, restricted delivery to Ms. Healy on April 24, 2009. On May 1, Winters received a certified letter (postage $4.90) dated April 30, 2009 and a copy of a resolution regarding salaries and benefits for 2008 approved by the Mayor. The letter indicated that there were no procurement/credit/debit cards held by any official in the name of the Rose Valley Borough. It also included contact information and office hours in case there was a need for further information. However, in a separate letter dated May 1st and received May 2nd, Healy noted that she remembered that she had one credit card that was issued to her, for Staples. There was no activity in October, 2008 on that card. No costs for postage or copying were noted. ASTON TOWNSHIP Helen Klussman, Requestor, A letter with the right to know request was posted by certified mail on April 9, 2009, addressed to Township Manager Richard Lehr who is also the designated Right to Know Officer. The certified mail receipt was not signed by Mr. Lehr. On April 19, Ms. Klussman received a letter from Lehr dated April 16 containing answers to the right to know request but providing no documents. In a follow up, call she was told that the Township Manager is appointed by the Commission and that there is no contract. HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP Roberta Winters, Requestor Haverford Township’s Open Records Policy and Open Records Request Form are available on the Township’s website. On April 24, 2009, Ms. Winters hand delivered requests for compensation package and procurement card records to the administrative offices of the Municipal Building addressed to the Township Manager Larry Gentile. The envelope was time stamped by a secretary around four o’clock. Within thirty minutes Mr. Gentile called her home. Winters was not home. Instead Gentile talked to her husband. He said Haverford Township does not issue credit/debit/procurement cards. He also indicated that he would scan his contract and e-mail it. When the promised email had not been received by May 5th , Winters made a follow up call to the office where it was answered by a secretary. Gentile returned the call, and it was received by her husband. Mr. Gentile noted that the email had been sent on April 24th. Winters returned the call to

4

Gentile and indicated that, for whatever reason, the email had not been received. She said she would stop by the office the following day to pick up the materials. Gentile resent the document immediately with the attached agreement regarding his compensation. Winters confirmed receipt by a responding e-mail. On May 6th, Winters visited the Township’s administrative office to pick up the documents (as per the request). When Winters arrived, the secretary indicated that there were no documents there and spoke to Mr. Gentile. Mr. Gentile invited her into his office where he printed out the e-mails and agreement for her. He also said that they do have a single credit card that is kept in a safe and not used. There was no charge for the documents. CHESTER UPLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT Helen Klussman, Requestor There was no Open Records policy information on the District web site and there was no Right to Know Officer for the District listed on the web site of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. Klussman posted a Right to Know request by certified mail on April 9, 2009. It was addressed to the attention of the Right to Know Officer. On April 29th Klussman called the school district to inquire about the status of her request. The secretary had no knowledge of it and did not recognize the name of the person who signed the certified letter receipt. She connected Klussman with Fran Fattah, one of two part-time lawyers for the district. Ms. Fattah said she had no knowledge of the request and asked that it be resent. On May 6 Robin Bush, the other part time lawyer for the school district left a message saying that a response would be sent shortly. On May 11, since she still had not received anything, Klussman called Ms. Bush to learn if she needed additional information. Bush said “No” and that she would be sending the district’s response within the week. Klussman received a letter dated May 26, 2009 and attached documents with the requested information. SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT Roberta Winters, Requestor The Open Records Information of the Springfield School District and a request form are available on the District web site that also references Policy 801, Public Records, Administrative Regulations and Procedures. On April 24, 2009, a compensation package request and a procurement card request were sent by certified mail with restricted delivery to Open Records Officer, Linda Roberts. On May 5th Ms. Winters called the school district as she had received no response by phone or mail. She spoke to Ms. Roberts, who said she had not received the request. Roberts noted she had a certified mail receipt but had not gone to pick it up. She asked Winters to send it again. Winters faxed the original request, along with a cover sheet, to her fax number at the District and followed up via phone to make sure Roberts had received it. Roberts confirmed receipt on May 5th. On May 9th Winters received a letter from Roberts dated May 6th and postmarked May 7th. The letter stated, “The District will require additional time to process your request in accordance with Section 902(a)(4) of the Law. 65P.S. 67.902(a)(4). Your request has been submitted to the District Solicitor, who will review both the request and any documents that the District deems responsive, for a determination as to whether they fall within the scope of the Law. You will receive a response from the District within thirty (30) days.” The letter was copied to the School Board President, the Superintendent, the Executive Director of Operations, and the Solicitor. On May 28th, Winters called Ms. Roberts and asked what the timelines were regarding her requests. Ms. Roberts anticipated that it would be mailed on or before June 11th. When Winters inquired if both requests were sent to the solicitor, she indicated that she works closely with the solicitor and that they would be in touch. On June 13, Winters received an envelope from the Springfield School District postmarked 6/11/09. It included a four-page letter from Roberts with the heading: “RE: Purported Right to Know Law Request Dated 5/5/09” and supporting documents. In regard to the procurement/credit/debit card request, the letter stated that the request for a list of names of individuals who have been issued procurement cards would be denied because such a list did not exist. Copies of credit card receipts and transaction statements from credit card companies for the month of October 2008 were provided. All information identifying individuals incurring the charge, except for the Superintendent were omitted. The letter stated that certain information was redacted because it fell under records considered exempt under the Right to Know Law with the following citation: "the disclosure of which creates a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety or the physical security of a (District) building, public utility, resource infrastructure, facility or information storage system." 65 P.S. 67.708(b)(3);

5

and (2) "personal telephone numbers," if any, listed in any and all invoices. 65 P.S. 67.708(b)(6)(i)(A). The District must redact this information prior to your review of the requested records. 65 P.S. 67.706. In regard to the Superintendent’s compensation package, documents were provided including the contractual agreement, salary increases and bonuses, health benefits, insurance programs, allowances for various expenses, as well as membership dues and fees. A more complete documentation of the Superintendent’s credit card transactions was also provided. The letter further noted that pursuant to District policy, public records could be examined in the presence of a designated employee at no cost. The duplication fee as outlined in the Law was cited along with the $12.50 cost (50 pages @ .25 each) for copying and postage ($2.58). As required by the Law, the Right to Know Officer included the appeal process and address to which appeals can be sent. GARNET VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT Marita Green, Requestor A certified letter was sent to the School District on April 9, 2009. No Right to Know information or Officer was listed on the district web site and was not available on the website of the PA Office of Open Records. Ms. Green received a copy of the Employment Agreement between the district and School Superintendant, Anthony Costello. She also received a copy of Act 93, the management compensation plan, photocopies of the dues paid to the American Association of School Administrators, the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators and dues paid to the Rotary Club. The letter contained a list of the positions of people who have access to the procurement cards (60) was given. She was charged $7 for the documents. UNIONVILLE CHADDS FORD SCHOOL DISTRICT Marita Green, Requestor No Right to Know Officer was listed as registered on the PA Office of Open Records list of Registered Right to Know Officers. However, the district does have an Office of Open Records link on their website. The School District was on the PA Office of Open Records list as being in Chester County even though it is partially in Delaware County. A certified letter addressed to the District’s Open Records Officer was mailed on April 9, 2009. Within a reasonable time Ms. Green received a letter and a copy of the Employment Agreement between the District and Superintendent Sharon E. Parker dated July 2006, the District’s Administrator Compensation Plan, July 1, 2004 –June 30 2009, a letter with the Compensation Package as applied to Ms Parker including the health care costs, benefits, and salary, dues and memberships and State Retirement contributions. A list of the procurement cards funded by the school district (4) was included. There was no charge for the documents. Observations A review of the Right to Know responses showed range of compliance. The Committee made the following general observations:

• • •

• • •

Boroughs and townships where the Right to Know Officer was the Borough or Township Manager were generally more responsive. Obtaining information was most challenging from larger agencies, e.g. County, City of Chester and the Chester Upland and Springfield School Districts. Involvement with solicitors created delays and unnecessary complications. Responses to requests were generally friendly and professional. Requests were not always filled in the format requested e.g. email rather that hard copy by mail. It was difficult to test the five-day timeline for compliance because of unknown factors such as mail delivery, personal absence, and office administrative procedures.

6

•

It was also difficult to determine if a request was denied or if clerical/transmittal problems created unfortunate time delays. For this reason, had the Committee decided to file an appeal, it would have been difficult to determine the deadline for filing an appeal which is 15 days following a denial.

Since the purpose of the audit was to test compliance with the new Right to Know Law, the League was more interested in the process of compliance than in content. However, with respect to county, borough and township governments, we did find that employment agreements varied in form. While some borough and township managers did have a contract, in the case of Delaware County, we were told that there was no contract because the Executive Director is appointed by a serves at the pleasure of the County Council. This was also the case with the Aston Township Manager. Under the Right to Know Law, agencies are only obligated to make an existing document public. They are not obligated to create a document in response to a request. Nevertheless, in the case of Aston Township, the Manager did write a letter containing the information requested. By contrast, the County Clerk wrote letter with general information on benefits that apply to all county employees but no documents. The letter also said that the Executive Director was appointed on January 7, 2008 and received a 3% percent increase in salary for 2009 but no salary information. In a later conversation with the Audit Committee Chairperson, Ms. Coogan explained that the salary information is part of a lengthy document listing the salaries of numerous County employees and she did not wish to charge for copying the entire document when only one piece of information was requested so she just gave Ms. Garthwaite the salary information verbally. Rating the Responses The nature of the responses was grouped into seven general categories: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Right to Know information available on line Compliance with Response Timelines Completeness of response Tone of response Cost/Fee 6. Instructions in request were followed 7. Denial appeal information provided A rating scale was developed (see Appendix) that could be used to score agencies on each criterion and to give an overall score. Because our audit was based on a sample of county government bodies and does not include all governmental bodies in any one category we decided it would be unfair to apply the score in this particular study. However, the rating scale will be used in any discussions of results with agencies audited. Additional Information Collected We also did a cursory survey to determine the accessibility of Right to Know information from Boroughs, Townships and School Districts that were not audited. This survey consisted of two steps:

1. Was the name of the Right to Know Officer on the list of Registered Right to Know Officers available on the web site of the PA Office of Open Records (http://openrecords.state.pa.us/)? 2. If not, was the information available on the agency website? We found that all 49 of Delaware County’s township/boroughs had some form of contact information on the PA Office of Open Records list of Registered Right to Know Officers. However, 14 did not have the name of a Right to Know Officers listed. Of these, Haverford, Newtown, Yeadon and Upper Chichester, had complete information on their websites. Of the others, Brookhaven, Colwyn, Eddystone, Folcroft, Millbourne, Morton, Rose Valley, Tinicum and had websites, but no link to Right to Know information was found. No government specific website was found for Lower Chichester. Of the 16 school districts in Delaware County, nine had no information at all posted on the PA Office of Open Records list of Registered Right to Know Officers. Of these, only Radnor, Ridley and Penn Delco had information available on

7

their website. The following districts appeared to have no information posted: Chester Upland, Garnet Valley, Haverford, Interboro, and Southeast Delco. Right to Know information was also posted by the Chester Community Charter School but no information could be found for Village Charter School and Delaware County Technical Schools. Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AGENCIES

1. Each agency should have a Right to Know policy, the name of the Right to Know Officer, and a Right to Know request form available on its web site. 2. Several persons in each agency, especially those who deal directly with the public and handle incoming mail, should be trained in compliance with Right to Know request procedures. This would be especially important if the designated Right to Know Officer is not available to handle requests. 3. To facilitate email submission it would be helpful if Right to Know Forms could be completed on line and submitted electronically. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITIIZENS 1. Your right to a public record is presumed. The burden is on the agency to show why you should not have access to a record. 2. You have a right to a courteous response to your request. You do not need to give a reason for why you are seeking access to a public record. 3. Agencies falling under the Right to Know Law include private entities like charter schools that receive public funds to provide a government service. 4. If you have access to the Internet, check the agency website. The information you want may be available on line. If it is not, use the agency’s Right to Know Request Form if one is available. Otherwise, download the Standard Right to Know Request Form from the website of the PA Office of Open Records (http://openrecords.state.pa.us/). 5. Requests can be delivered by fax, email, US mail or in person. Delivering requests in person may generate more prompt attention. 6. Agencies are not required to create a record that does not exist. Be sure you are seeking a record, not just asking questions. 7. Requests need to be carefully worded to get the information you want. Be specific. 8. Be prepared to pay up to 25 cents per page for an 8 ½ black and while copy if you want copies of a record. An agency may charge more under some circumstances. Prepayment may be required if charges are expected to exceed $100. 9. If an agency does not respond to your request within 5 business days after receiving the request it is presumed to be denied. Before filing an appeal, a follow up phone call to find out why you have not received a response is advisable. The League’s experience showed the request might get lost in the agency’s bureaucracy. 10. For information on filing an appeal, contact the PA Office of Open Records (http://openrecords.state.pa.us/). An appeal must be filed within15 business day of the mailing date of the agency’s response. It is not clear how this rule applies if an agency simply fails to respond. 11. Further information on Pa Right to Know is available from the following: • The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Open Records, Commonwealth Keystone Building, 400 North Street, 4th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17120-0225. 717-346-9903, [email protected] for general questions and appeal submissions). Website: (http://openrecords.state.pa.us/) • Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition, 4075 Linglestown Road #312, Harrisburg, PA 171121020. www.pafoic.org • The Pennsylvania Open Government Forum. An open forum for discussion of open government policy issues. You must register with a valid email address to participate. http://openrecordspa.org • The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. www.pa-newspaper.org

8

12. Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law does not cover open meetings which are governed by the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act http://www.dced.state.pa.us/public/oor/SunshineAct.pdf.

Conclusions The League of Women Voters believes that democratic government depends upon informed and active participation in government and requires that governmental bodies protect the citizen’s right to know by giving adequate notice of proposed actions, holding open meetings and making public records accessible. Periodic public document audits are a valuable tool for determining if agencies at all government levels are prepared to comply with the Right to Know Law. This study was limited in scope. Requests were primarily sent by certified mail. A test of responses to requests filed by email or fax would provide additional information about agency readiness. Also, the appeals process, which may have determined if denials were appropriate, was not pursued. Other agencies in Delaware County that could have been audited include charter schools and government authorities.

9

APPENDIX LWV* Right to Know Audit Rating Scale

Right to Know Information On-Line

Compliance with Response Timelines

Completeness of Response

Exemplary 3

Satisfactory 2

Home page links to Right to Know (RTK) officer, contact information, policy, forms, and other sites related to the law Responds in writing within five-day period with info as requested

Home page links lacking one or more resources: RTK officer, contact info, forms, policy, and/or related links Responds orally, via-email, or U.S. Mail within five-day period regarding request

Provides all info as requested in clear, welldocumented way

Provides info as requested but in a difficult manner or format to be meaningful Professional, formal, businesslike

Needs Improvement 1 Home page lacks clear link to right to know RTK resources; search box option only

Unable to Assess No information about right to know RTK found on the agency web site

Responds orally via e-mail or US mail beyond five-day period or fails to provide materials as indicated within timelines Provides partial information or incomplete response

No evidence of response

Inconsistent, only responds to direct inquiries of requestor, vague

No evidence of response

Information not forth-coming

Tone of Response

Friendly, open, personable communication

As per costs delineated in procedural guidelines

Costs and fees miscalculated or above guidelines

No data to determine

Cost/Fees

At no charge given costs greater than $1.00 Clarifies instructions and offers options to requestor

Follows directions as noted by requestor

Complies in manner inconsistent with request

No basis; limited evidence

Appeal process and addresses included with reason for denial.

Cites link to information on denial reasons and appeal process.

Denies with no reference to reason or appeal process

No basis; limited evidence

Follows Instructions in Request

Denial appeal information provided

Score

*Collaboratively developed by League of Women Voters of Delaware County and League of Women Voters of Radnor Township, under a Citizens Initiative for Transparency Grant from the League of Women Voters of the US Education Fund.

10