The Commonwealth Court was required to decide whether records that were not yet completed at the time of a request made pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”) were public records. The court held that an agency is required to produce only those records that were in existence at the time of the request, and incomplete records do not count.
Tag: right to know law
This case required the Commonwealth Court to decide whether video recordings from cameras on buses can be exempt under the “noncriminal investigation” exemption to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”). The Commonwealth Court held that a video recording taken prior to the start of an agency investigation can qualify under the noncriminal investigation exemption of the RTKL when it is downloaded or viewed for purposes of that investigation. As a result, the Port Authority of Allegheny County (the “Port Authority”) did not have to disclose video recordings downloaded in relation to a property damage claim filed against it.
California University of Pennsylvania (the “University”) petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review of a final determination made by Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records (OOR) in January 2017. The final determination held that records relating to the University’s investigation of a structural failure in an on-campus parking garage were recoverable. The Commonwealth Court affirmed in part and vacated and remanded in part the ORR’s final determination. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court held that the University failed to show that certain records were exempt from disclosure under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (the “RTKL”) as records of a noncriminal investigation or as records of predecisional deliberations. However, the Commonwealth Court did remand potentially privileged records to OOR for an in camera review.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to determine whether or not a county commissioner’s handwritten notes regarding phone conversations with private citizens, which were never relied on for official action, constituted public records under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). Ultimately, the court held that these notes did not document a transaction or official business activity under the RTKL. Therefore, it affirmed the trial court’s decision that the notes were not subject to disclosure.
This Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) dispute involved fourteen consolidated cases. Fourteen State System of Higher Education Universities (the Universities) appealed from an Office of Open Records (OOR) final determination that granted two requesters access to records related to the Universities’ budgets and finances. The Commonwealth Court was required to address (1) whether the requests were specific enough to enable the Universities to locate responsive records, (2) whether the large number of records requested made the request non-specific, and (3) whether the Universities should be given more time to review the records due to the large number of records requested. The court held that an agency is not relieved of its duty to produce responsive records due to the size of the request, but an agency may be granted a time extension by the OOR if the agency can show that more time is truly needed for proper review.
This case required the Commonwealth Court to construe the Right to Know Law (RTKL), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104, together with the Pennsylvania Voter Registration Act (VRA), 25 Pa. C.S. §§ 1101–1906. The court affirmed a decision by the Office of Open Records (OOR) and held that the RTKL does not govern the disclosure of voter registration information because the VRA and the Pennsylvania Department of State’s (DOS) pertinent regulations expressly establish the procedures for making that information public. As such, the DOS may require compliance with the VRA and relevant regulations even if such a request is submitted under the RTKL.
On April 16, 2015, Commonwealth Court considered 2 procedural matters in a Right-to-Know-Law appeal: (1) sufficiency of a certified record and (2) sufficiency of a signed verification from the responding agency, here the Department of Education (Department).
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has determined that the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) can withhold the home addresses of individuals residing with former judges and law enforcement officers, but could not categorically exclude information for members over age 60.
Published By:
