Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Murphy
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 2738, C.D. 2010
July 19, 2011
The Commonwealth Court ruled that documents pertaining to Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission employees’ use of E-ZPass transponders are not public records under the Right to Know Law because the records contain information that is confidential under the Pennsylvania Transportation Act.
The court also ruled that the agency could not provide additional information to the court that it had not presented to the Office of Open Records in response to the initial appeal.
Background
Jan Murphy, a reporter for The Patriot-News in Harrisburg, submitted a Right to Know Law request to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission seeking information concerning commission employees’ use of E-ZPass transponders. The commission denied the request, explaining, among other things, that the Transportation Act provides that the requested information be kept confidential.
Murphy appealed to the Office of Open Records. The OOR granted Murphy’s request for information concerning employees’ use of the turnpike and their positions within the commission, but denied the request to the extent that it sought the names of employees who had used the transponders. The commission appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court Decision
The Right to Know Law exempts records that are confidential “under any other federal or state law.” The Transportation Act protects certain information about people who hold E-ZPass accounts from disclosure, including their “names, addresses, account numbers, account balances, personal financial information, vehicle movement records and other information compiled from transactions with the account holders.”
In light of this protection, the court agreed with the OOR’s determination that employees’ personal information, including their names, is confidential because the employees are considered E-ZPass “account holders” under the Act.
The court, however, disagreed with the OOR’s ruling concerning information about employees’ usage of the turnpike and their positions with the commission. Because the Commission’s employees are “account holders,” the Transportation Act also protects that information, the court said.
In addition to the substantive ruling about the availability of the information, the court issued a ruling concerning procedures during appeals.
The court ruled that once an OOR decision has been appealed to the Commonwealth Court, a government agency cannot supplement the record by providing new factual information to the court.
In this case, the commission wanted to submit two additional declarations from its employees, but the court rejected this request, explaining that the commission could have submitted the declarations to the OOR and was not permitted to get a “proverbial second bite at the apple.”
July 19, 2012 — Commonwealth Court Opinion — No. 2738, C.D. 2010