Department of Conservation and Natural Resources v. Office of Open Records
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1165, C.D. 2009
ALSO: Office of the Budget v. Office of Open Records
No. 1209, C.D. 2009
Department of General Services
No. 1556, C.D. 2009
May 24, 2010
The Commonwealth Court held that the certified payroll records of government contractors were publicly accessible under the Right to Know Law.
Because the payroll records qualified as “financial records” under the Law, they were subject to very limited exemptions, and, under the exemption for personal financial information, the court allowed the government to redact the name and/or address of the employees of the contractors.
Background
Three Commonwealth agencies – the Office of the Budget, the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, and the Department of General Services – received Right to Know Law requests for the certified payroll records of private companies that had contracted with the agencies. All three agencies complied with the requests, disclosing the records but redacting the names and addresses of the contractors’ employees.
The people who requested the records appealed to the Office of Open Records, which ordered the agencies to disclose unredacted versions of the certified payroll records.
All three agencies appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
The agencies argued that the redactions were consistent with the RTKL’s exemption for “information relating to an individual’s personal finances.” Thus the records themselves are public records.
The court initially agreed that the certified payroll records seem to be exempt as personal financial information, noting that the law specifically provides access to salary and compensation information for public officials and agency employees and suggesting that the RTKL protects the financial information of people who are not public officials and agency employees.
Nevertheless, the court ruled that the payroll records are considered “financial records” under the RTKL, and these “financial records” must be disclosed.
The court noted that the law provides that an agency “may redact” portions of financial records subject to the personal financial information exception and, in this case, the agencies properly redacted the names and/or addresses of the contractor’s employees, thereby “render[ing] what was personal financial information, impersonal.”
May 24, 2010 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 1165, C.D. 2009