In this appeal from a determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) pursuant to a request under the Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”), the Commonwealth Court rejected the claim of requester, Alton Brown, who alleged that the Department of Health (“DOH”) did not disclose a complete record, and charged him unreasonable fees for the request.
Continue readingTag: Office of Open Records (OOR) (Page 1 of 2)
In this appeal from the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) the Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that motor vehicle recordings (“MVRs”) created by Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”) officers responding to an auto accident were not per se protected from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) as “criminal investigative records,” nor were they per se protected “investigative records” under the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”).
In this appeal from a determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court found that information voluntarily submitted to a Commonwealth agency and which was not needed by the agency to perform its duties, did not constitute a “record” under the RTKL. As such, the requested information did not have to be disclosed.
In this appeal of a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court remanded a determination granting access to the home addresses of certain members of the State Employees’ Retirement System (“SERS”). The Court held that its decision in Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Office of Open Records, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (“PSEA III”) was controlling, and, as PSEA III had been issued after OOR had rendered its final determination, the matter should be remanded to allow OOR to reevaluate whether dissemination was warranted.
In this Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) appeal from the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court was asked to evaluate when a request is too vague such that an agency is not required to respond. In finding that the request at issue was too vague, the court reasoned that an overly broad request that does not identify a specific transaction or activity for which the record is being sought, provides no context to guide the agency’s record search and does not require production.
In this Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) case arising from an appeal to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court was presented with a petition alleging that a state agency had failed to disclose all responsive records, as ordered by OOR, and a request for statutory sanctions. In denying cross motions for summary relief, the court chose to allow the matter to develop further to determine the extent of the Department of Corrections’ (“DOC”) noncompliance with the OOR final determination.
In this decision out of Allegheny County the Commonwealth Court was presented with the question of whether the volunteering of time or services, and the permitting of temporary government use of property without compensation constitutes a “donation” to a government agency that falls under the donor exception to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). In reversing the final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the court found that because there was no express limitation on the type of donations exempted from disclosure within the RTKL, such donations were exempt from disclosure.
In this appeal of a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) the Commonwealth Court weighed in on the scope of the Criminal History Record Information Act (“CHRIA”) and the criminal investigative exception to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) and there applicability to surveillance videos obtained from third parties. In reversing OOR’s final determination, the Commonwealth Court held that surveillance videos obtained from third parties during the course of a criminal investigation are not required to be disclosed pursuant to a RTKL request.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), the Commonwealth Court weighed in on whether certain unsuccessful bids for public infrastructure projects were subject to disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”). Specifically, the issue presented was whether a statute that ordered the public release of successful bidders, but was silent as to unsuccessful bidders, should be read to exclude unsuccessful bidders from disclosure, or whether the silence meant that the general requirements of the RTKL applied and disclosure was required. In finding unsuccessful proposals were not public records, the Court differentiated standalone statutes and open ended versus closed ended statutes when applying the disclosure requirements of the RTKL.
In this appeal from a final determination of the Office of Open Records, the Commonwealth Court was asked to determine whether an agency’s failure to present evidence in support of their claimed exemption from disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), amounted to a default determination requiring disclosure. In finding that it did not, the court held that where the plain language of a request falls within an exemption, additional evidence is unnecessary.
Published By:
