School district might appeal judge’s order to release records

Benjamin Spillman | Reno Gazette-Journal

Washoe County School District administration officials want to avoid handing the Reno Gazette Journal records related to an investigation into the special education department, despite a judge’s order to do just that.

On Tuesday, the Washoe County School Board is scheduled to vote on a request to appeal a June 26 ruling by District Judge Jerome Polaha.

The ruling ordered the district to turn over records from an investigation into bullying and harassment allegations within the special education department.

But the agenda for the Tuesday meeting of the Washoe County School District Board of Trustees shows administration officials want to fight the ruling in front of the Nevada Supreme Court.

School district officials did not return a request for comment.

More: Judge orders Washoe school district to hand over records from bullying investigation

In a letter attached to the agenda item, district general counsel Neil Rombardo said Polaha's decision failed to accurately apply the law and wrote, “The District’s Office of the General Counsel believes the requested documents are confidential and protected from disclosure as a public record. Accordingly, the District filed a motion to dismiss.”

RGJ attorney Lou Bubala disagreed.

“Judge Polaha issued a well-reasoned decision that supports the release of public records, including the district’s right to redact certain portions to protect the privacy of individuals,” Bubala wrote.

The RGJ filed the petition seeking records on Feb. 5 after Rombardo refused repeated requests for the records under the Nevada Public Records Act.

“Under the circumstances, the School District’s refusal to produce the requested records to the RGJ violates the Nevada Public Records Act,” RGJ attorney Scott Glogovac, since retired, wrote at the time.

District spent $48,000 to investigate complaint of bullying, harassment by administrators

The case dates back to early 2017 when RGJ education reporter Siobhan McAndrew learned the district spent $48,000 to hire the human resources firm Solutions at Work to investigate work-related complaints within the School District’s Office of Special Services.

Further investigation by the RGJ revealed memos by Deputy Superintendent Kristen McNeill to the Washoe School Principals’ Association that said special education administrators Jenny Ricci and Byron Green had been accused of workplace bullying and harassment.

During the course of reporting on the district, McAndrew asked the district for a copy of the contract with Solutions at Work, documentation of financial agreements with Solutions at Work, copies of any reports Solutions at Work delivered to the district and correspondence between Solutions at Work and the district.

In her request, McAndrew cited the Nevada Public Records Act, which outlines the public’s right to “access to inspect and copy public books and records,” and states limits to records under the law “must be construed narrowly.”

Rombardo denied the request, saying the documents weren’t subject to disclosure because they are “attorney-client work product.”

Glogovac replied the district response failed to state how the documents from the human relations firm could be categorized as attorney-client work product.

In subsequent exchanges, the district provided a copy of a “letter of engagement” with Solutions at Work but continued to deny the vast majority of the documentation requested, citing attorney-client privilege.

In the court filing, Glogovac cited the letter of engagement, which states the agreement with Solutions at Work is for human resource services and doesn’t include legal advice.

In seeking a court order for the district to provide the records, Glogovac wrote that the district’s acknowledgement that Solutions at Work wasn’t hired to provide legal advice undermines the attempts to withhold the records under an attorney-client shield and is a violation of the Nevada Public Records Act.

“This violation is particularly notable given the fact that the primary basis asserted by the School District for non-disclosure – i.e., that the requested records are protected by the work product doctrine – is specifically negated by correspondence authored by the School District’s own Deputy Superintendent,” Glogovac wrote.