Mortellus
May 15, 2024
When a North Carolina transparency organization requested electronic records concerning TJCA's gender-neutral bathroom controversy, the Academy's attorney refused electronic delivery and insisted on in-person inspection. Sunshine Request challenged that position using state law and guidance from the North Carolina Attorney General. After months of correspondence, the organization publicly reported that it had reached an impasse with the school.
What happened: On May 15, 2024, the North Carolina public records transparency organization Sunshine Request submitted a records request to Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy concerning communications about gender-neutral bathrooms at the school's Grammar Campus.
The request sought emails, text messages, and letters exchanged or received by members of TJCA's Board of Directors, executive leadership, and Grammar School principal between April 1 and May 12, 2024.
The organization expressly excluded confidential student information and requested copies of existing electronic records in their original electronic format. The following morning, attorney David Hostetler responded on behalf of TJCA. Although Hostetler stated that the Academy would attempt to gather responsive public records, he rejected the request for electronic delivery.
Instead, he informed Sunshine Request that the organization would be required to arrange a visit to the school to inspect the documents.
Sunshine Request challenged that interpretation of North Carolina's Public Records Act, citing guidance from the Duke First Amendment Clinic and the North Carolina Attorney General.
Hostetler maintained his position through subsequent correspondence, arguing that the law did not obligate the Academy to transmit records by email.
The exchange continued into June. By July 16, Sunshine Request publicly reported that it had reached an impasse with TJCA, a status it reiterated on December 6, 2024. The complete correspondence was published on Sunshine Request's website, providing a contemporaneous documentary record of the dispute.
What was established:
May 15, 2024: Sunshine Request seeks records about the bathroom controversy
Sunshine Request's original request concerned communications about gender-neutral bathrooms during the period immediately preceding TJCA's highly attended May 7, 2024, Board meeting. That meeting had attracted considerable public attention over school practices involving bathrooms, student pronouns, and the treatment of LGBTQ+ students and families.
The organization requested communications received by or exchanged among the Board of Directors, the executive director, and the Grammar School principal. The request was specific about both its scope and the desired delivery method. Sunshine Request sought existing electronic records, not a physical appointment to examine printed documents or computer screens at the Academy. It also explicitly instructed TJCA to exclude confidential or personally identifying student information from any responsive materials. The requested records could have shed light on what school leadership knew about the controversy, how administrators communicated privately, and how the Academy responded to concerns raised by parents and community members.
May 16: TJCA's attorney rejects electronic delivery
On May 16, Hostetler responded to the organization. He acknowledged the request and indicated that TJCA would attempt to collect responsive records, including materials stored on school and personal devices. Hostetler also stated that he would review records for legally confidential information. But the central issue appeared in his explanation of how the school intended to make those materials available. "We will not provide the records via electronic means, as the PR Act does not require it." Instead, he said the organization would be notified when the records were ready so that it could arrange an in-person visit. This position did not merely raise a question about the convenience of emailing documents. It rejected the specific form of access the requester had selected.
May 24: Sunshine Request challenges Hostetler's interpretation
On May 24, Sunshine Request responded with a formal letter explaining why it believed the Academy's position was inconsistent with North Carolina law. The organization stated that it had sought guidance from the Duke First Amendment Clinic. Its argument focused on two provisions of the North Carolina Public Records Act.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6(a) requires public records custodians to permit inspection and, upon payment of any lawful fees, promptly furnish copies of public records.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6.2(a) gives requesters the ability to obtain copies in media the agency is capable of providing and prohibits denying a requested medium merely because the custodian prefers another.
Sunshine Request also cited the North Carolina Attorney General's Open Government Guide, published under Attorney General Josh Stein. That guide explains that members of the public may choose to inspect documents, request copies to be sent to them, or do both. It further states: "A requester can ask to have records emailed." Sunshine Request reiterated its request for electronic copies and asked Hostetler to confirm that TJCA would provide them.
May 31–June 3: Hostetler reiterates the school's position
When Sunshine Request followed up on May 31, Hostetler replied that the organization had not received an answer because it had failed to agree to the school's requirements for in-person inspection. On June 3, Hostetler sent a more extensive response, acknowledging that he had prepared an earlier reply but failed to send it. His June 3 message directly challenged the legal authorities cited by Sunshine Request. He characterized the organization's letter as containing errors of law and questioned the value of advice associated with the Duke First Amendment Clinic, suggesting that the organization should rely on licensed attorneys or binding court decisions instead.
Hostetler also rejected Sunshine Request's reliance on the Attorney General's guidance, emphasizing that the Attorney General was not a court and that such guidance was not binding judicial authority. He argued that the statute's provisions for inspection under reasonable supervision supported requiring requesters to visit the school rather than receive documents electronically. In addressing Sunshine Request's request for email delivery, Hostetler characterized the requested method as a matter of convenience rather than a legal obligation. He again asked whether the organization would arrange to inspect the records at TJCA. The June 3 correspondence therefore confirmed that the dispute was not a misunderstanding of the original request. Both parties understood that Sunshine Request wanted electronic copies. TJCA's attorney continued to refuse that method of production.
What North Carolina law actually says
The statutory provisions underlying the disagreement are important. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6 distinguishes between inspecting public records and obtaining copies. It imposes obligations on custodians concerning both forms of access. Section 132-6.2(a) specifically addresses the format in which requested copies may be obtained: "Persons requesting copies of public records may elect to obtain them in any and all media in which the public agency is capable of providing them."
The statute also prohibits denial of a requested medium solely because the custodian prefers to provide records in another medium.
North Carolina's Attorney General further explained in the 2019 Open Government Guide that agencies may not refuse an available format simply because they prefer another, and that requesters may ask to receive records by email. These provisions give Sunshine Request's objection a substantial statutory basis. The Attorney General's guidance did not suggest that every paper record must be digitized or that every electronic document must necessarily be sent as an email attachment regardless of the circumstances. The law does not require agencies to create electronic versions of records that are not already maintained electronically.
But that was not the central demand Sunshine Request made. The organization requested electronic copies of existing electronic records, while TJCA's attorney asserted a general right to require in-person inspection instead. The dispute concerned whether the Academy could substitute its preferred method of access for the copies expressly requested by a member of the public.
July–December 2024: The request reaches an impasse
Following Hostetler's June 3 response, Sunshine Request indicated on June 21 that its team was reviewing the correspondence and considering next steps. On July 16, the organization published an update stating that it had reached an impasse with TJCA concerning fulfillment of the request.
It also reported that it was consulting legal counsel. On December 6, Sunshine Request reiterated that the parties remained at an impasse and that further discussions concerning potential next steps were ongoing. The publicly preserved exchange does not document TJCA providing the requested electronic records. The organization's webpage displays a government-response status, but the response documented there consists of the school's correspondence, not the requested communications concerning the bathroom controversy.
Why the dispute matters
North Carolina's Public Records Act is intended to provide public access to information about government operations, including the activities of publicly funded charter schools. The ability to obtain copies is particularly important for journalists, watchdog organizations, parents, and other members of the public who need to examine, preserve, compare, and report on official records.
Requiring in-person inspection when a requester has asked for copies can impose practical obstacles, particularly for people who live outside the immediate area, have limited transportation, work during school business hours, or require accessibility accommodations. In this case, Sunshine Request was an Asheville-based organization seeking records from a school in Rutherford County. Its request was also related to an active public controversy involving student privacy and school governance. The records requested could have provided insight into the Academy's internal communications during the period leading up to the May 7 Board meeting.
Rather than resulting in disclosure, the correspondence became a prolonged argument over how the public was entitled to receive the requested information. The dispute also demonstrates how legal interpretations advanced by a public institution's counsel can directly affect transparency.
A request for records about a public controversy became a separate controversy over whether the school would provide those records at all in the requested form.
Original evidence:
Sunshine Request — Complete TJCA correspondence, May–December 2024. Original May 15 request, TJCA's responses, Sunshine Request's objections, and subsequent public status updates.
Sunshine Request — May 24, 2024, response to David Hostetler (PDF). The organization's formal legal response, prepared following consultation with the Duke First Amendment Clinic.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6. Statutory provisions governing inspection, examination, and copies of public records.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-6.2. Statutory provisions concerning copies, requested media, and fees.
North Carolina Attorney General, Open Government Guide (2019). Official state guidance concerning public records requests, copies, electronic formats, and agencies' obligations.
Subsequent developments: By December 6, 2024, Sunshine Request had publicly reported that its attempts to obtain the requested electronic records from TJCA remained at an impasse.
The organization indicated that it was consulting counsel regarding how to proceed. The published correspondence does not establish a subsequent resolution, a judicial ruling arising from this particular request, or the eventual production of the requested documents. The archived exchange nevertheless remains publicly accessible and preserves both the Academy's asserted legal position and the organization's objections. Its significance also extends beyond this single request. During the summer of 2024, other disputes concerning TJCA's handling of public records emerged, including a separate request from the family involved in the Academy's student privacy controversy. In that dispute, TJCA later demanded a $5,000 advance payment for records production, prompting further questions about public access and the use of legal and administrative charges. Together, these incidents form part of a broader documented history of disputes concerning the accessibility of public information held by TJCA. TJCATruth.com welcomes records documenting any subsequent resolution of the Sunshine Request matter, including later correspondence, records eventually produced, or proceedings addressing the school's interpretation of the Public Records Act.
Report from the community: The Sunshine Request correspondence preserves direct statements from both the requesting organization and TJCA's attorney. Unlike accounts that rely on recollections of private conversations, the parties' positions are documented in dated communications published in full. Sunshine Request repeatedly asserted its right to receive electronic copies of existing records and provided legal authority supporting that position.
Hostetler repeatedly maintained that the school could require in-person inspection instead.
The correspondence provides a firsthand record of the organization's effort to exercise public records rights and of the resistance it encountered concerning the requested delivery method.
TJCATruth.com has not yet incorporated additional firsthand testimony from Sunshine Request personnel or individuals who participated in TJCA's handling of this particular request beyond the published exchange. We welcome accounts from community members, journalists, former staff, and public records requesters who encountered similar conditions when seeking records from TJCA, particularly those who were required to inspect records in person despite asking for electronic copies. We are also interested in whether requesters were ultimately able to obtain copies, how those records were provided, and whether similar practices continued after December 2024. Individuals with relevant firsthand experiences are encouraged to contact TJCATruth.com. Requests for anonymity will be respected, and identifying information will not be published without the contributor's explicit consent. All submissions will be handled with discretion and confidentiality.