The Commonwealth Court vacated a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that had required the governor to release complete copies of his calendar entries.
The court sent the case back to the OOR to review the calendar entries to determine whether they were exempt under the Right to Know Law’s exception for documents that reflect predecisional deliberations.
The Commonwealth Court vacated a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that had required the governor to release complete copies of his calendar entries.
The court sent the case back to the OOR to review the calendar entries to determine whether they were exempt under the Right to Know Law’s exception for documents that reflect predecisional deliberations.
The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the records of a private government contractor performing government functions on behalf of a government agency, in this case a private contractor’s records relating to bids to run the concessions at a county-owned stadium, are subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law.
The court defined “government function” as any “non-ancillary undertaking of government” — a definition the court acknowledged was vague and would be clarified in future cases.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that resolutions discussed at an agency’s public planning meeting are not considered drafts, do not reflect internal predecisional deliberations, and therefore must be disclosed under the Right to Know Law.
The Commonwealth Court reversed an Office of Open Records (“OOR”) final determination, denying the disclosure of records relative to the gas pipes of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) because the records qualified for the noncriminal investigation exemption of the Right to Know Law.
The Commonwealth Court held that an agency must issue a final response to a Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) request within the time limits established under the law and cannot refuse to provide requested documents because the requester has not paid for records he previously requested.
In addition, the court ruled that an agency can waive the attorney-client privilege by failing to raise it as a ground for denying a RTKL request.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that a request for the dates of birth of all of a county’s employees are exempt under the personal security exemption of the Right to Know Law in light of a demonstrated risk of identity theft.
The Commonwealth Court sent the case back to the trial court for the county to provide additional information supporting its decision to deny a request for all of its employees’ home addresses.
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the final determination of the Office of Open Records by holding that requested records were exempt from disclosure because they were protected by the attorney-client privilege.
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.
The Commonwealth Court held that a request seeking “all correspondence … concerning” a mortgage restructuring and workout project “and, or distributed to the Board” was insufficiently specific, finding that the Office of Open Records lacks statutory authority to narrow the scope of the request so that it becomes sufficiently specific.