Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburgh v. Van Osdol
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 795 C.D. 2011
March 8, 2012
The Commonwealth Court determined that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide on an appeal of an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination even though the OOR, not the party seeking records, was named appellee.
On the merits of the case, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the OOR decision because the records sought disclosed only the personal information of owners of Section 8 housing, as opposed to the tenants who receive the social service, and therefore do not fall within an exemption.
Background
Paul Van Osdol, a reporter for a Pittsburgh TV news station, made a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request to the Housing Authority for the owners’ names and addresses for all Section 8 properties administered by the authority. The Section 8 program is also known as the Housing Choice Voucher Program and provides rental assistance to low-income families. The authority denied the request, stating that the information fell under various exemptions that precluded the disclosure of personal information.
Van Osdol appealed to the OOR, which ordered the disclosure of the records. The OOR stated that the request sought the identification of the owners of the properties, not the tenants and, as a result, would not result in the identification of an individual who receives social services, which information is exempt under the RTKL.
The authority appealed to the trial court, naming the OOR as a defendant. The trial court dismissed the case, concluding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction when the OOR was improperly named a defendant in the appeal.
The trial court stated that the proper defendants were Van Osdol and his news station, but that it was too late to join them as defendants because the statute of limitations had run. The trial court nonetheless considered the merits of the appeal and held that the authority failed to establish that the requested information was exempt. The authority appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court decision
The court ruled that the trial court improperly dismissed the appeal. It stated that the trial court confused the definitions of jurisdiction and standing.
“The mere fact that the OOR, named as appellee, was not an ‘aggrieved’ party did not deprive the court of its power to decide the authority’s appeal … Where, as here, a statute confers a right to file a statutory appeal with a court, that court is vested with subject-matter jurisdiction over the appeal.”
On the merits of the appeal, the court affirmed the final determination of the OOR. The court determined that Van Osdol only sought the names and addresses of the owners of section 8 property. “The requested information does not itself identify individuals who apply for or receive social services or the type of social services received by those individuals.”
As a result, the information was not exempt and can be released.
The authority argued that due to “the ease of the county’s electronic records searches,” this information, if disclosed, could easily lead to the disclosure of the personal information of tenants.
The court rejected this argument: “That properly disclosed public records may enable the requester or others, by doing further research, to learn information that is protected from disclosure is not generally a sufficient basis to refuse disclosure.”
The court, however, did not rule out future cases where this argument might prevail and declined to define the standards that must be met “to allow withholding of records which are not facially exempt.”
The authority asserted two more exemptions. However, the court would not consider them as they were not included in its written denial of Van Osdol’s request.