The Commonwealth Court ruled that if a person who claims that a Right to Know Law request was denied improperly, that person must follow the appeal procedures in the law and cannot file a separate lawsuit seeking to obtain the documents.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that: (1) meeting minutes for the board of directors of a private non-profit are not public records under the Right to Know Law even though a government official appointed a member to the board; (2) a second request for the same records is not a disruptive request under the law, even if an agency faces budgetary constraints and the request consumes attorney and staff time; and (3) the Office of Open Records should have conducted a hearing to determine whether records were protected by the law’s exemption for confidential proprietary information.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that certified payroll records received by an agency from a private contractor but no longer in the possession of the agency qualified as public records. Therefore, the court said, they must be turned over to the requestor.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that honor code violations of students were exempt from disclosure under the noncriminal investigation exemption of the Right to Know Law and under the federal law governing student privacy, even though the requested records did not identify specific students.
The court also held that a requester could not depose agency officials to try to establish that records are public under the law.
The Commonwealth Court held that the Office of Open Records can rule on a requester’s appeal of an agency’s denial of a Right to Know Law request only if the requester’s written appeal has addressed each of the agency’s reasons for denying the request.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that destination addresses in 911 time response logs are not exempt under the Right to Know Law, and counties must provide cross-street information about the location to which emergency responders were dispatched.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that a county court has discretion over whether to allow a government contractor to participate in an appeal from an Office of Open Records decision concerning its records.
The court also ruled that more information was needed to determine whether records showing the names, birth dates, and hire dates of the contractor’s employees directly related to its performance of a government contract.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that real estate tax records held by a township’s tax collector were not in the possession of the township and thus were not subject to the Right to Know Law.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that an agency is not required to provide access to records merely because those records are under its “control.” Only records that are in the agency’s possession – or that are held by a government contractor and directly relate to a government function – can be considered “public records” under the Right to Know Law.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that emails on the personal computer or in the personal email account of a public official are not considered records of an agency under the Right to Know Law.