People who ask the South Whidbey School District for public records will no longer be identified online, the school board decided this week.

At a workshop Wednesday evening, directors informally agreed with Superintendent Jo Moccia’s recommendation to drop the practice in the wake of public criticism, extensive news coverage and because naming requesters doesn’t help the board understand the financial impacts of complying with the state’s Open Public Records Act — the board’s stated goal of the policy.

Despite the change, critics had strong words for the school board. Eric Hood, the former teacher who many claim was at the heart of the controversial policy, called the directors’ and the superintendent’s actions to date “hypocritical” and “disgusting,” and the policy itself an illegal retaliatory measure designed to “shame and silence” him.

“It violates state and federal student privacy laws. It violates community bonds. It violates common decency,” said Hood, reading from a prepared statement.

In December, the district began including a document in online meeting agendas that named the people who sought public documents, the details of what they asked for and an estimation of the time and financial resources it took to satisfy the request. The policy sparked widespread criticism from open government advocates and district parents alike.

Transparency champions complained that it appeared as if it was a response to the district’s ongoing legal battle with Hood, and designed to steer the public away from making records requests, which they charged was contrary to the spirit of state sunshine laws.

School officials have repeatedly characterized Hood as an abusive requester, and the expense of fighting his 2011 public records lawsuit and satisfying his and other’s information requests — estimated at about $400,000 — were one of the cornerstones of the policy. School board members wanted to stay on top of the rising legal expenses associated with records requests.

Later, parents including Hood claimed the policy ran afoul of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, commonly referred to as FERPA. Several of those parents were at Wednesday’s meeting.

Moccia countered claims that the policy was an accountability measure aimed at keeping abusive requesters in check, maintaining that it has always been about telling the board where tax dollars and staff time are spent. It followed a 2013 recommendation by the Washington State School Directors Association and mirrors the Monroe School District’s online reporting policy.

She acknowledged that the public reception to the practice on South Whidbey was different from Monroe’s, and thus prompted a revision.

She proposed replacing the names of requesters with a non-identifier, such as a number or letter. It accomplishes the original goal but also addresses public objections, she said.

None of the directors opposed the change, but Chairwoman Linda Racicot and co-Chairman Steve Scoles asked if identities would still be disclosable upon request. Both Moccia and the district’s attorney, Laura Clinton of Seattle-based K&L Gates, confirmed that such information was indeed available for public release. As soon as a records request is submitted it becomes a public document itself, they said.

“That’s an important point for all of us to understand,” Racicot said.

Responding to questions from the audience, Moccia said FERPA requests are different and student data would not be released. The name of the requester, however, might if that person requests student data from the district’s designated public records officer, and not a principal.

Mark Helpenstell, whose name and request for his child’s student information was included in the district’s online reporting document, challenged that position.

“That seems at cross swords with FERPA protections, very heavily to me,” Helpenstell said. “I think that’s a huge problem and a big, big issue that you all need to address.”

He added that the public shouldn’t have to know the difference between two sets of rules, that bureaucratic minutia is the responsibility of district professionals. To have unintended information made public because they don’t know is unfair to parents, he said.

The district needs to separate and make clear to the public the difference between the two, he said. Helpenstell also seconded claims that policy seemed designed to shame or embarrass requesters.

The school board wasn’t without any public support, however. Fred O’Neal, a longtime former board member, read excerpts from court documents during the public comment period that painted Hood as an abusive requester. One portion from Island County Superior Court Judge Alan Hancock said Hood’s requests were so large and broad that “it is not surprising” the district was unable to produce documents in a timely manner.

O’Neal went on, “Now here’s my favorite part, ‘Hood now seeks monetary penalties in the astonishing sum of $390,795, as well as attorney fees… .’ ”

The judge ruled the district did not produce records in a timely manner, but only awarded Hood $7,150 in fines.

Moccia said the district does hope to make the existing reporting option more clear and useful to the public. To start, rather than only including the document in online board agendas, it will be posted in another section with a more visible title. The document would be modified on a continual basis, rather than monthly, to show the status of requests. It would also contain basic information about how to make a request.