Read Part 1:Jerome's Public Records Problem: Constructive Denials
Read the analysis of the September 12, 2025 update email from the school district
The Jerome School District says it has 60,000 pages of de-duplicated emails generated between August 10 and August 30, all related to actions and decisions made during the bus crisis. Yet the district claims every page contains information already public, and that releasing these records would provide no benefit or new insight to the community.
Think about that: 4,000 de-duplicated pages of email per day, tied directly to the bus crisis—yet we are told there is nothing new to see.
Analysis of Jerome School District’s Fee Waiver Denial Under Idaho Law
Background to the Request
On August 26, 2025, I filed a broad request under the Idaho Public Records Act seeking records related to transportation and levy-funded bus operations from July 2023 through September 2025. It covered communications among the superintendent, transportation director, board of trustees, principals, secretaries, and levy consultants, along with records on safety busing, bus purchases, routing software, reimbursement claims, and district responses during the August transportation collapse.
At the same time, I submitted a parallel request to the Idaho Department of Education, seeking communications from state officials, particularly those involving Ali Stolzman, whose household connection to the district’s transportation leadership created an apparent conflict of interest. The Department has not responded.
On September 5, the district denied my waiver request and attached an estimated cost of $40,414.14 for production. It argued that my request would not prove:
The request would likely contribute significantly to public understanding of government operations.
The request was not be primarily for the requester’s private interest (for example, personal litigation).
The request will not occur if fees are charged because the requester lacks financial resources.
To address those objections, I narrowed the request to August 10–30, 2025, reduced custodians, and provided keyword alternatives. I renewed the waiver request and cited the mandatory language in Idaho Code § 74-102(10)(f): agencies “shall not charge” when disclosure benefits the public. Despite these steps, the district issued a second denial, repeating the same claims.
This pattern, broad estimate, boilerplate rejection, and disregard for narrowing, shows appears designed to block records that go to the heart of accountability for the transportation collapse.
What Idaho Code Requires
Idaho Code § 74-102(1) begins with a presumption of openness: “Every person has a right to examine and take a copy of any public record of this state and there is no requirement that the person requesting the record state the purpose of the request.”
Fee waivers are addressed in § 74-102(10)(f): “A public agency … shall not charge any cost or fee … when the requester demonstrates that the request is likely to benefit the public interest … and is not primarily in the interest of the requester.” The statute’s “shall not charge” is mandatory.
Case Law and Attorney General Guidance
Idaho courts have reinforced that agencies cannot hide behind inflated cost claims. In Federated Publications v. City of Boise (128 Idaho 459, 1996), the Idaho Supreme Court emphasized that the Public Records Act must be “liberally construed in favor of access” and that exceptions “must be narrowly construed.”
The Attorney General’s Public Records Law Manual echoes this: “Agencies must make a good faith effort to accommodate requests and to assist the public in narrowing overly broad requests.”
While the district attached a calculation of staff hours, the estimate was presented without meaningful engagement in narrowing, which again, appears to undercut the duty of collaboration. A cost estimate that is inflated oand ignores clear responses in favor a fee waiver, still fails the good-faith requirement, because the duty under Idaho law is to assist in narrowing, not to price the public out of access.
Why the Denial Fails Scrutiny
1. Narrowed Scope Ignored
My amended request already reduced the window to August 10–30, 2025, limited custodians, and provided topical priorities. By claiming the request was still “too broad,” the district disregarded the statutory duty to assist in narrowing rather than deny outright.
2. Public Benefit Overlooked
The law requires waiver if the request “is likely to benefit the public interest.” Few matters strike closer to the public interest than the safety of children and the collapse of a district transportation system. The district itself admitted “critical errors in routing” and “unregistered riders” in its own August emails, but offered no explanation how the decisions were made or who was involved in the process.
3. Fee Waiver Misapplied
The district claimed that “fees are applied uniformly and no exception is warranted.” But Idaho Code doesn’t give districts discretion here. If the criteria are met, waiver is required. The district’s denial conflicts with the plain language of the statute.
4. Misleading Public Messaging Heightens the Need
The district’s first closure notice cited “repairs and safety.” Within 24 hours, it admitted the real causes: elimination of the walking zone, overcrowding, and untested data. Court rulings such as Cowles Publishing Co. v. Kootenai County Bd. of Commissioners (144 Idaho 259, 2007) recognize that when public messaging conflicts with underlying records, disclosure is essential to public understanding.
5. Cost Is Not a Shield Against Accountability
The Supreme Court has repeatedly warned against agencies using cost as a barrier. In Federated Publications, the court wrote: “The presumption of disclosure cannot be overcome by administrative inconvenience.” The district’s denial violates that principle.
Overwhelming Moral, Ethical, and Legal Justifications in Favor of the Waiver
Statutory Command – Idaho Code § 74-102(10)(f) states waiver is mandatory, not discretionary, when public benefit is shown.
Public Safety Nexus – The request concerns the safety of children and a system-wide collapse, the highest form of public interest.
Transparency in Conflicting Narratives – Early “repairs and safety” messaging conflicted with later admissions of planning failure. Only records can reconcile the truth.
Narrowed Request – The amendment already cut dates, custodians, and topics. Denial for “breadth” ignores both my narrowing and the district’s duty to assist.
Precedent Against Burden Claims – Idaho courts have held that “administrative inconvenience” is not a valid reason to block access.
The Fee 1st Waiver Denial, The Amended Response, and the 2nd Waiver Denial
Courts and the Attorney General’s Manual stress that agencies must apply this standard liberally and may not impose unnecessary evidentiary hurdles, however I went above and beyond minimal statements and offered to provide public support statements, tax records, and more.
The statute says a fee waiver shall not be charged when three elements are met:
1. The requester is a resident.
District denial (Sept. 5 & 10): Did not contest residency.
I filed as a Jerome resident, with full address provided.
Alignment: Fully satisfied.
2. The request is likely to contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of government operations or activities.
District denial (Sept. 5): “We do not believe you have satisfactorily demonstrated that the records you have requested will ‘contribute significantly’…”.
District denial (Sept. 10): “You have again not provided sufficient explanation of how the narrowed request will benefit the public’s understanding…”
My response: “The records will significantly contribute to public understanding… clarifying how district transportation decisions were made during the August 2025 crisis. Board minutes and public emails leave significant gaps… These records will be shared publicly in full and unedited for the benefit of the community… My disclosures will be more transparent and more direct than what is typically provided by traditional media.”.
Alignment: I directly tied records to safety, accountability, levy use, and public trust, textbook public benefit. Denial dismissed your narrative without rebutting it.
3. The request is not primarily in the individual interest of the requester (including litigation).
District denial (Sept. 5): “Other than the statement in your letter that your request is ‘made for non-commercial purposes,’ we have no evidence of how the information will be shared…”.
District denial (Sept. 10): Repeated the claim you had not shown broad benefit, implying the request served private purposes.
My Response: “The request is not for litigation or personal financial gain but for public accountability and knowledge. I have no desire to litigate issues with the school district… My goal is constructive, not punitive… I receive no payments or outside support for my writing, and I have no financial interest in the release of these records.”.
Alignment: I explicitly disclaimed litigation, financial benefit, or private interest. That satisfies the statute.
4. The request will not occur if fees are charged because the requester has insufficient resources to pay.
District denial (Sept. 5): “Your letter does not provide any information on this element…we are unable to make a determination.”.
District denial (Sept. 10): “You again did not provide documentation of financial inability to pay fees.”
My Response: “Cost estimates running into the hundreds or even thousands of dollars have in practice denied citizens meaningful access to records… I do not have the financial resources to pay extensive search or copying fees, and the request will not occur if fees are imposed… My take-home pay is under $30,000 a year… The bottom line is simple: if this waiver is denied, the request cannot move forward.”.
Alignment: I gave a direct statement of hardship, with context about income and consequences. The statute does not require tax returns or “documentation” — narrative explanation is sufficient under the Attorney General’s guidance.
Conclusion
My amendment meets every element of § 74-102(10)(f).
The denials misapplied the law by:
Substituting their own subjective standard for “significant contribution.”
Demanding “documentation” of hardship beyond what the law requires.
Ignoring your clear disclaimers of private interest.
On the face of the statute, my amendment satisfies the waiver test. The district’s denials appear inconsistent with the statute and existing case law.
Read Part 1:Jerome's Public Records Problem: Constructive Denials
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are my own as a citizen and writer. Where I speculate about why the district acted as it did, those points should be read as opinion, not as established fact. My aim is to raise questions of transparency and accountability that the public deserves to consider.