I was just re-reading the Academy problem statement article that you have listed to the left. I don’t know who wrote that but I came across a paragraph that says that in 2016 the Academy’s status will revert back to private.
Is that really accurate? Because I just came across an old court case that oddly enough, rules that WA is essentially a public entity. Actually, this case looks pretty interesting. I only read a synopsis of it. I don’t know how to get the full details. I gather that the bottom line is that WA is the “functional equivalent” of a public agency and as such they are subject to FOIA requests just like the BOE.
I’m not trying to start trouble or attack the Academy. I was just trying to answer my own question as to why WA doesn’t just throw open their books for taxpayer review. Now with this court ruling, I guess I have my answer. The books legally have to be opened if they are requested by FOIA; same as for any other agency.
Maybe Kevin can explain this? Here’s the court case:
Board of Trustees of Woodstock Academy v. Freedom OF Information Commission, 181 Conn. 544 (1980). I also saw this case listed as 436 A.2d266 (Conn. 1980).
The synopsis that I read said that the test for determining whether an entity is the functional equivalent of a public agency within the meaning of 1-200(1)(B) G.S. is set forth in the case I just referenced above (BOT of WA v. FOI Commission). There are four criteria for determining whether or not an agency can be considered public and be subject to FOIA requests as set forth in this court ruling. The criteria are: Read the rest of this entry »
