, , , ,

Remember this letter I wrote over 2 months ago – questioning NYPPL and the deletion clause in the SLC contract with NYSED?  Well, the response was received in today’s mail!  I didn’t include the entire 3 page letter because the gist of it is on page 2 (page 1 simply refers to the NYC case that was dismissed as discussed below)

The first page (not included) essentially says that New York’s Personal Privacy Protection Law, Article 6-A only requires consent for data disclosure if that data is necessary for a state agency to carry out its legally authorized duties.  The letter references the NYC lawsuit which was dismissed – which explains why the 2 month delay in the response.  Curious as to what the response would have been if the NYC case did not happen.  No matter, truly.  I’m in the 2nd Department, a 1st Department case is merely persuasive here – not binding…

Regarding the deletion clause:  

Here’s my question from my letter to them:  

First, InBloom (when they were known as SLC) entered into an agreement with NYSED.  Please see http://usny.nysed.gov/rttt/docs/slc-service-agreement.pdf(“SLC Agreement”).  This agreement has several attachments.  Attachment F of the agreement has exhibits annexed, as well.  Exhibit “C” of Attachment F contains a provision labeled “3.8 District Opt-Out from SLI” that provides the following: “If a school district decides they no longer wish to use the SLI system, they may request that district student data be deleted from the SLI data store.  SLI will have a mechanism to delete these records from the data store.” During our meeting, you suggested this provision permitting districts to delete student data only applies after the two year period the district is obligated to utilize InBloom per the agreement between our district and NYSED.   Please note that there is no reference to the Service Agreement between SLC and InBloom in the Memorandum of Understanding between our district  and NYSED….

What is the source of the determination that the deletion provision in the agreement between the state and InBloom does not apply until after the two (2) year period;

THEIR RESPONSE:  See 2nd page of response here:  pic.twitter.com/plTBEeQgUs

They claim that the deletion clause in Exhibit C to Attachment F only applies AFTER the pilot period when and if districts enter into their own contracts with SLC.

This is nonsense.  First, the contract provision regarding district level registration applies IF a district’s STATE has not entered into a contract with SLC.  New  York has indeed entered into such a contract.  As such, the language they’re claiming applies cannot possibly apply!

Second, the provision permitting districts to request deletion is in a completely different subsection of the contract and exists in the contract by itself.  It is not near nor referenced in the prior section regarding districts entering into contracts with SLC on their own AFTER the pilot period.  There is no reference to “after the pilot period” in the section that gives the district the right to delete!

Pure nonsense.  Contract interpretation 101.