The Commonwealth Court ruled that the Office of Open Records does not have the authority to rewrite a requestor’s Right to Know Law request in considering an appeal. The court also ruled that a request for “any and all records, files… or communications of any kind” was insufficiently specific.
The Commonwealth Court held that the certified payroll records of government contractors were publicly accessible under the Right to Know Law.
Because the payroll records qualified as “financial records” under the Law, they were subject to very limited exemptions, and, under the exemption for personal financial information, the court allowed the government to redact the name and/or address of the employees of the contractors.
The Commonwealth Court determined that fundraising records of a foundation established solely to raise funds for a state-owned university are accessible to the public under the Right to Know Law because the records are directly related to the government function performed by the foundation.
The court also ruled that the Office of Open Records has no standing to participate as a party in appeals of its decisions.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that complaints initiating property enforcement actions, including the names of the people who made the complaints, are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law’s noncriminal investigation exception.
When a person asks an agency to waive its fees in responding to a RTKL request, the agency must provide a non-discriminatory reason if its denied the request. If the agency asks a requester to pay the duplication cost up front because the estimated cost of complying with the request is greater than $100, the agency must explain how it estimated the copying costs.
The Commonwealth Court held that when responding to a Right to Know Law request, an agency is not required to create a record that does not exist.
The Commonwealth Court held that the Right to Know Law does not supersede state regulations in place when the General Assembly passed the RTKL.