Letter to Sumner County Board of Education

7/24/2019 Letter to Sumner County Board of Education

1/4

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


2/4

w iler

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

aller Lansden Dortch Davis, LLP


3/4

w iler

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.

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.

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



4/4

w iler

Mr. Jeremy Johnson

February 12, 2016

Page 4

Thank y ou for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Robb S. arvey

Waller Lansden Dortch Davis LLP

cc: ennifer Easton (via email)

Mealand Ragland via email)

Todd Presnell, Esq. counsel for Board in

fakes

case)(via email)

4831-6362-1421


Documents

Letter to Sumner County Board of Education