One of the key points of contention between residents of WW-P and school district staffers is opacity: residents want to know why the District does the things it does, in precise and unambiguous terms. And we have a right to, under the Open Public Records Act and related FOIA jurisprudence.
The district has historically not been fond of residents exercising this right. In particular, it is fond of invoking “Exemption 5,” which allows (but does not require) public agencies to shield certain intra-agency memoranda and deliberative material, so that they may discuss policy more candidly.
However, this does not apply to adopted policy, and the law on this front is quite clear — in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., the Court states explicitly that the public is “vitally concerned” with the reasons behind any adopted policy, and that those reasons and policies which constitute the District’s “working law” must be disclosed.
Moreover, in Afshar v. Department of State, the Court found that upon being adopted as reasoning for a final policy, material otherwise exempt from disclosure (e.g., under Exemption 5) loses that protection. The Court found this to be true even in a national security context, which underscores Congress’ aversion to “secret law.”
I write this to help residents of our two towns exercise our right to know. Transparency is both a public right, and helps to build goodwill between our families and District employees. Moreover, I believe that public scrutiny of District actions, and public debate over its chosen course, leads to sounder decision-making.
If anyone is interested in requesting relevant policies or reasonings from the District and/or meets an Exemption 5 rebuff, I would be happy to assist. I can be contacted atsoodarnav01@gmail.com.
— Arnav Sood, West Windsor
