State Employees’ Retirement System v. Office of Open Records
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 153, C.D. 2010
November 4, 2010
The Commonwealth Court ruled that the State Employees’ Retirement System could not charge a requestor for labor costs it incurred in complying with her request. The court also held that the Office of Open Records has the authority to establish duplication fees.
Background
Tracie Mauriello, along with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, submitted a Right to Know Law request to the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) seeking the years of service, class of service, and the compensation for specific state employees.
Mauriello asked to be notified if the cost to obtain the information would exceed $50.
SERS informed Mauriello that the request would cost $77 based on the labor involved in fulfilling her request.
Mauriello challenged the fee by appealing to the Office of Open Records.
The OOR agreed with Mauriello and required SERS to provide her with the requested records at a price of 25 cents per page to cover the costs of copying the records. SERS appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
On appeal, SERS explained that the requested information is not contained in a single document. Rather than providing copies of the many requested documents that included information responsive to the request, two SERS employees compiled the requested information into a one-page spreadsheet. In light of this work, SERS argued, it was necessary to charge Mauriello with the labor cost as this work, which would not have been performed in the absence of the request.
The Commonwealth Court disagreed, citing the section of the RTKL that states an agency “shall not be required to create a record which does not currently exist or to compile, maintain, format or organize a record in a manner in which the agency does not currently compile, maintain, format or organize the record.”
SERS had no obligation to create the one-page spreadsheet and thus, according to the Court, did not “necessarily incur” its labor costs in responding to the request. Consequently, it could not charge Mauriello for creating a record. Moreover, “the RTKL does not expressly authorize the charging of labor costs.”
SERS also challenged the OOR’s authority to set its duplication fees. But, the court rejected this challenge, noting that a section of the RTKL specifically grants this authority to the OOR.
November 4, 2010 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 153, C.D. 2010