Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1427 C.D. 2010
February 29, 2012
The Commonwealth Court held that the records of a charter school were public records because they directly related to the government function served by the company.
Background
Daniel Hardy, a reporter for The Philadelphia Inquirer, requested certain records from a charter school. The school denied the request, and Hardy appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”).
Before the OOR handed down its final determination, it requested two extensions from Hardy’s lawyer. The OOR then determined that the records should be disclosed. On appeal, the trial court affirmed. The school then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court decision
On appeal, the school first argued that the OOR’s did not decide the case in time and that the OOR hearing officer’s communications with Hardy’s lawyer seeking an extension to issue its decision were improper.
The court explained, however, that “the purpose of the short deadlines set in the [RTKL for the OOR to issue its decisions] is not to protect government agencies, such as Charter School, but to benefit the requesters by ensuring swift processing of their records requests.”
As such, “requester had sole discretion on whether to grant an extension.” And, although the court was troubled by the communications between the OOR officer and Hardy, which did not include the lawyer for the school, the court ruled that Hardy should not be punished for any error made by the OOR, and, in any case, any possible taint was remedied when the trial court reviewed the OOR’s ruling.
The school also argued that its records are not subject to disclosure because they relate to a private management company and are not related to the operation of the school. The court rejected this argument, however, ruling that the RTKL provides that a third party contracted by a government agency and performing a governmental function on behalf of the agency is subject to the RTKL.
Here, the management company was performing the school’s governmental function, making the records public.
▪ February 29, 2012 – Commonwealth Court Opinion – No. 835 C.D. 2011