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: rtkl
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 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.
In this interlocutory appeal from a decision of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court held that government entities withholding information subject to a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request must provide affidavits with sufficient information to demonstrate why the information is non-disclosable or OOR has broad discretion to order in camera review of the information at issue.
The Delaware Riverkeeper Network’s (“DRN”) request for the release of information collected by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s (“DEP”) Bureau of Radiation Protection was denied by the Commonwealth Court this week.
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:
