Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law and Sunshine Act Training
2
0
2
1
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law
and Sunshine Act Training
November 18, 2021
Liz Wagenseller, Executive Director
R
i
g
h
t
-
t
o
-
K
n
o
w
L
a
w
B
a
s
i
c
s
The very basics of the Right-to-Know Law
•
RTKL allows people to
request state & local gov’t records
•
Agencies must respond within
5 business days
Can sometimes extend deadline by 30 calendar days
Requester can grant additional time – must be in writing
•
Can grant or deny request, or a combination of both
•
If any part denied, requester can appeal (
<2.5% of cases
)
•
OOR decides cases in 30 days (requester can grant more time)
•
Either side can appeal OOR decision to court (
<10% of cases
)
2
O
f
f
i
c
e
o
f
O
p
e
n
R
e
c
o
r
d
s
Created by RTKL: Independent & quasi-judicial
•
Decide appeals filed by people denied access to records
•
Provide RTKL & Sunshine Act training
•
2020 = 2764 Appeals Reviewed
•
22 total staff
Executive Director & Deputy Director
14 Attorneys
Chief of Training & Outreach
5 Administrative
3
O
O
R
M
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
RTKL authorizes OOR to establish
informal mediation program
•
Goal: Mutually agreeable settlement
•
Voluntary & confidential
•
Either side can end mediation at any time
If mediation ends, case moves to normal appeal process (new
AO)
•
OOR has trained mediators
•
Can save time & expense
4
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
O
O
R
Training on the RTKL & Sunshine Act
•
OOR website filled with information
https://www.openrecords.pa.gov
•
Weekly virtual trainings: basics, recent cases & more
Details on OOR website
May also request a custom virtual training
5
R
T
K
R
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
•
The OOR remained operational through the pandemic.
•
The OOR issued indefinite stays (essentially a pause) for all appeals
filed with the OOR from late March to early April of 2020; switched
to 30 day stays in April.
•
In August of 2020, the OOR began issuing stays for appeals only as
needed; otherwise, business as usual, which continues to this day.
6
G
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
O
O
R
D
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
s
7
S
i
n
c
e
P
a
n
d
e
m
i
c
B
e
g
a
n
,
M
a
j
o
r
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
I
n
v
o
l
v
i
n
g
H
e
a
l
t
h
,
O
t
h
e
r
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
8
M
o
s
t
L
o
c
a
l
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
S
e
e
S
p
i
k
e
s
I
n
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
9
M
o
s
t
A
p
p
e
a
l
s
C
o
m
e
F
r
o
m
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
10
R
T
K
L
i
n
2
0
2
1
“
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
L
a
b
o
r
a
d
m
i
t
s
i
t
o
v
e
r
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
u
n
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
n
s
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
”
Spotlight PA , July 9, 2021
“
I
B
M
p
a
i
d
P
a
.
$
3
3
M
t
o
s
e
t
t
l
e
l
a
w
s
u
i
t
o
v
e
r
j
o
b
l
e
s
s
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
c
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
”
The Patriot-News, September 13, 2021
“
F
r
e
e
r
i
d
e
s
t
a
k
e
$
1
0
4
M
t
o
l
l
o
n
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
T
u
r
n
p
i
k
e
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
”
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
P
r
e
s
s
,
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
4
,
2
0
2
1
11
•
“Kangaroo’s secret
remains safe after
Pennsylvania refuses to
disclose its location to
former Quakertown woman
who once owned it”
Morning Call, February 26,
2021
12
T
w
o
A
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
F
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
A
c
t
i
n
g
i
n
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
•
Uniontown Newspapers vs. Department of Corrections
(2020)
Commonwealth Court found that the Department of Corrections “acted in bad
faith” in its search for responsive records to a RTKL request and required the
Department to pay the newspaper $118,458 in legal fees
•
California University of PA vs. Bradshaw (2021)
Commonwealth Court ordered California University of Pennsylvania to pay
over $14,000 in legal fees to a newspaper for frivolous conduct and acting in
bad faith for how it handled an open records request
13
O
O
R
S
t
u
d
y
F
i
n
d
s
N
e
e
d
f
o
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
A
g
e
n
c
y
R
T
K
L
W
e
b
p
a
g
e
s
•
OOR reviewed RTKL webpages of 135 agencies. Ke
y
findings:
•
91% have RTKL information on their websites as required by
law
•
50% have all three required pieces of information (AORO
contact info, OOR contact info, RTKL request form)
•
Best practices:
•
Easy to locate
•
Comprehensive information for agency open records officer
•
Resource account for AORO
•
Printable
and
electronic request forms
•
Include links to frequently requested items
•
Police departments should include RTKL request info
•
Everything should be provided on one webpage
14
2
0
2
1
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
SUNSHINE ACT
Agenda Requirements
November 18, 2021
https://openrecords.pa.gov
openrecords@pa.gov
@OpenRecordsPA
(717) 346-9903
George, Spiess, Chief of Outreach and Training
•
All agencies must post an agenda of issues to be deliberated on or
planned official action at least 24 hours prior to the public meeting.
•
Includes Regular and Special meetings
•
Does not include work sessions, conferences, and Executive Sessions
•
Websites*, agency offices, and meeting sites, and available at the
meeting itself
*(including other social media platforms i.e.: Facebook)
Agenda Provisions, 11.2021
Agendas
Changing the Agenda
- Before the Meeting:
•
“di minimus” with no expenditure of funds or entering into a contract
- During the Meeting:
•
If initiated by the public – can be deferred to a future meeting
•
If initiated by the board by majority vote:
•
Reason must be announced prior to official action
•
Amended agenda must be posted within 24 hours
•
Minutes must reflect the change
Agenda Provisions, 11.2021
Agendas continued
2
0
2
1
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
CASE LAW UPDATE AND REVIEW
November 18, 2021
https://openrecords.pa.gov
openrecords@pa.gov
@OpenRecordsPA
(717) 346-9903
Nathan Byerly, Deputy Director
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
7
0
8
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
–
p
r
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
d
e
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
Chester Water Authority v. Pa. Dep't of Cmty. & Econ. Dev.
249 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2021)
RTKL request:
copies of documents reflecting communications among the
Department, Econsult, and the Fairmount Capital and McNees firms
(consultants) related to the potential sale of the water authority
DCED denied under Section 708(b)(10):
The
internal
, predecisional deliberations
of an agency, its members,
employees or officials
or predecisional deliberations between agency
members, employees or officials and members, employees or officials of
another agency . . ..
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
7
0
8
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
–
p
r
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
d
e
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
•
The OOR found that the agency communications with consultants were
internal to the agency and thus protected under Section 708(b)(10).
•
The Commonwealth Court affirmed stressing the desirability of a frank
exchange of ideas and opinions between the agency and its consultants.
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
7
0
8
(
b
)
(
1
0
)
–
p
r
e
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
d
e
l
i
b
e
r
a
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
•
The PA Supreme Court disagreed:
•
Section 708(b)(10)
does not on its face apply to communications
with outside consultants.
•
T
he statute requires narrow construction.
•
This
solidifies the interpretation that private consultants providing
services as independent contractors
do not
qualify as agencies,
members, employees, or officials who may engage in protected
internal communications.
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
California University of Pennsylvania v. Bradshaw
, No. 1491 C.D. 2018
(October 13, 2021)
RTKL request: all records related to donations from Manheim
Corporation to the Foundation for University of California between
January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, and all records identifying
the uses of those funds.
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
University denied the request stating it did not possess donation
records of the Foundation and it did not matter who had the records
since access to donor records is protected from disclosure under
Section 708(b)(13).
The OOR disagreed and granted the appeal.
University appealed to Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court affirmed the OOR. University filed a petition for
allowance of appeal with Pa. Supreme Court which was denied.
University contacted Foundation and discovers no such records existed.
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
•
In sum, the Court concludes that the University engaged in bad faith
and frivolous conduct in denying Respondent's RTKL request. Why?
•
It denied the request without first determining whether the
Foundation had potentially responsive records in its possession and
then subsequently litigated the denial.
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
v
s
.
G
o
o
d
F
a
i
t
h
S
e
a
r
c
h
Uniontown Newspapers v. DOC
, 243 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2020)
•
Request for
documentation of illnesses contracted by inmates and/or
staff members at SCI-Fayette.
•
Court held Department of Corrections acted in bad faith at the
request
stage under the Right to Know Law in significant part because
the agency open records officer (AORO) failed to act with diligence in
response to appellee's request as required by § 502(b)(1).
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
v
s
.
G
o
o
d
F
a
i
t
h
S
e
a
r
c
h
Uniontown Newspapers v. DOC
, 243 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2020)
•
AORO did not:
•
review the request with the Bureau of Health Care Services;
•
question assumptions or the narrow interpretation of the
request by the Bureau;
•
did not take any steps to confirm whether the only records that
existed other than those generated in the ongoing investigation
were medical records.
G
o
o
d
F
a
i
t
h
S
e
a
r
c
h
•
Elements of a good faith search:
•
Advise all custodians of
potentially
responsive records about the request
•
Agents within its control, including third party contractors
•
Employees – includes personal devices
•
Obtain all potentially responsive records from those in possession
•
AORO
has duty to review the records and assess their public nature
•
If unsure that records are responsive, employees should give records to the AORO for
assessment
•
Employees and contractors should
not
be independently deciding if the records fall under an
exemption – responsive records should go to the AORO for that determination
•
Follow-up on inconsistencies, assumptions and inaccuracies
G
o
o
d
F
a
i
t
h
S
e
a
r
c
h
•
Additional notes:
Failure to
search records
in an agency’s possession for responsive records during
the request stage constitutes bad faith.
An AORO is meeting duty of
diligence when "direct[ing] requests to other
appropriate persons within the agency.“
The AORO does not fulfill his or her obligation simply by relying on the
representations of others without inquiring as to what investigation was made and
without reviewing the records upon which the individual responding to the request
relied.
An agency’s failure to locate responsive records
until motivated by litigation
shows
bad faith, meriting consideration by a fact-finder.
B
a
d
F
a
i
t
h
Uniontown
Court also held:
•
Proof of bad faith does not require establishing fraud or
corruption. Rather, an abandonment of mandatory duties by an
agency, including performance of a detailed search and review of
records to ascertain if the requested material exists, or if any
exclusion may apply,
prior to denial of access
will support a
finding of bad faith. (citing
Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Dorsey
,
97 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014))
.
C
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
D
o
n
o
r
N
a
m
e
s
a
r
e
P
u
b
l
i
c
California University of Pa. v. Bradshaw
,
210 A.3d 1134 (Pa.Cmwlth 2019)
•
Request:
Records related to donations between Manheim Corporation and
a university fund.
•
Holding:
Section 708(b)(13) of the RTKL uses the term “individual” (as do
other exemptions) rather than “person” to refer to exempt donor
identities, and therefore the exemption applies only to the identities of
natural persons, not corporate entities.
C
a
s
e
L
a
w
U
p
d
a
t
e
Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller
, 232 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2020)
School bus video did not constitute an education record under the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.S. § 1232g, because
the school district failed to show that it was exempt from disclosure
under 65 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 67.708(b)(1)(i), as the school district did not
demonstrate it would lose federal funding as a result of disclosure.
The order included
instructions to the school district to redact
students' images from the video prior to disclosure.
C
a
s
e
L
a
w
U
p
d
a
t
e
Payne v. Dept. of Health
,
2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 700 (Pa. 2020)
•
Scores alone do not demonstrate any deliberation among the agency’s
employees. Where an agency regularly releases a type of information, it
cannot claim that information is internal and confidential in other
situations.
Darlington v. Dept. Of Labor & Industry
, 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 451 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2020)
•
Routine boiler inspections are not exempt under Section 708(b)(17)
because the language of the statute differentiates between inspections
and investigations, the statute permits inspection by certified third parties
rather than agents of the Department of Labor & Industry, the agency did
not show that the routine inspections involved the kind of comprehensive
inspections which occurred in prior cases, and because there was no
apparent public policy which justifies withholding the documents
C
a
s
e
L
a
w
U
p
d
a
t
e
McKelvey v. Pa. Department of Health
,
255 A.3d 385 (Pa. 2021)
•
Request for all of the medical marijuana business permit applications
pursuant to the RTKL
•
DOH allowed applicants to redact information the third parties
believed should be redacted. DOH did not independently review the
applications or redactions.
•
Because the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) did not allow an agency to
delegate its disclosure duties or defer to the redactions of third
parties, the Department of Health's failure to independently review
the redactions by applicants seeking permits to grow, process or
dispense medical marijuana was not in accord with the RTKL.
A
r
g
u
m
e
n
t
s
&
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
N
o
t
S
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
O
O
R
M
i
g
h
t
b
e
W
a
i
v
e
d
Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey
,
2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 528
•
Request:
Applications for grower/processor and dispensary permits
for medical marijuana.
•
Holding:
Third parties which have a full opportunity to submit this
information to the OOR and fail to do so do may not have a right to
submit that information on appeal to the court.
2
0
2
1
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
LOOKING AHEAD TO 2022
November 18, 2021
https://openrecords.pa.gov
openrecords@pa.gov
@OpenRecordsPA
(717) 346-9903
Liz Wagenseller, Executive Director
P
e
n
d
i
n
g
L
e
g
i
s
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
N
o
t
e
•
Vexatious requestors (HB1457/SB552)
•
Commercial requestors (SB312)
•
Agency use of “trade secret” exemption (HB 296)
•
Amend Disease Prevention and Control Law (HB1893)
36
I
n
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
t
O
O
R
•
Electronic docketing system
All steps of appeal process conducted on portal accessed via OOR
website
•
Promulgation of regulations of appeals process
•
Rework of website
37
A
g
e
n
c
y
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
:
A
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Submitting conclusory affidavits
, in which an agency provides a legal argument or
conclusion instead of facts. Example, “These records are not subject to the RTKL”
is conclusory; the agency must explain factually
why
the records are not subject
Insufficient searches for records
, when an agency does not prove that they did a
thorough search for potentially responsive records. For example, affirming that a
third-party contractor searched their records
Declining to reach out to a requester to narrow down a request
. The RTKL does
not prevent an agency from calling a requester in an attempt to better ascertain
the records they seek. A brief conversation can often save the agency hours of
time and even prevent an appeal.
38
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Q
u
e
s
t
i
o
n
s
?
Today’s training has been recorded and will be posted to our website.
If we did not answer your questions today or you have more questions,
contact us:
•
Via website form:
https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/ContactOOR.cfm
,
•
Via email:
openrecords@pa.gov
, or
•
Via phone: 717-346-9903.
•
Submitted questions are records under the RTKL.
•
OOR website has resources for agencies & requesters
https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/
This content provides detailed information on the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) in Pennsylvania, including the basics of requesting government records, the role of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the OOR Mediation Program, training opportunities, and how RTK requests were managed during the pandemic. It emphasizes the importance of transparency and access to public records.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Liz Wagenseller, Executive Director 2021 2021 Annual Annual Training Training Pennsylvania s Right-to-Know Law and Sunshine Act Training November 18, 2021 https://openrecords.pa.gov openrecords@pa.gov @OpenRecordsPA (717) 346-9903
Right Right- -to to- -Know Law Basics Know Law Basics The very basics of the Right-to-Know Law RTKL allows people to request state & local gov t records Agencies must respond within 5 business days Can sometimes extend deadline by 30 calendar days Requester can grant additional time must be in writing Can grant or deny request, or a combination of both If any part denied, requester can appeal (<2.5% of cases) OOR decides cases in 30 days (requester can grant more time) Either side can appeal OOR decision to court (<10% of cases) 2
Office of Open Records Office of Open Records Created by RTKL: Independent & quasi-judicial Decide appeals filed by people denied access to records Provide RTKL & Sunshine Act training 2020 = 2764 Appeals Reviewed 22 total staff Executive Director & Deputy Director 14 Attorneys Chief of Training & Outreach 5 Administrative 3
OOR Mediation Program OOR Mediation Program RTKL authorizes OOR to establish informal mediation program Goal: Mutually agreeable settlement Voluntary & confidential Either side can end mediation at any time If mediation ends, case moves to normal appeal process (new AO) OOR has trained mediators Can save time & expense 4
Training from the OOR Training from the OOR Training on the RTKL & Sunshine Act OOR website filled with information https://www.openrecords.pa.gov Weekly virtual trainings: basics, recent cases & more Details on OOR website May also request a custom virtual training 5
RTK Requests During the Pandemic RTK Requests During the Pandemic The OOR remained operational through the pandemic. The OOR issued indefinite stays (essentially a pause) for all appeals filed with the OOR from late March to early April of 2020; switched to 30 day stays in April. In August of 2020, the OOR began issuing stays for appeals only as needed; otherwise, business as usual, which continues to this day. 6
Growth in OOR Decisions Growth in OOR Decisions 7
Since Pandemic Began, Major Increases in Appeals Since Pandemic Began, Major Increases in Appeals Involving Health, Other Agencies Involving Health, Other Agencies 8
Most Local Agencies See Spikes In Appeals Most Local Agencies See Spikes In Appeals 9
Most Appeals Come From Citizens Most Appeals Come From Citizens 10
RTKL in 2021 RTKL in 2021 Department of Labor admits it overcharged Department of Labor admits it overcharged unemployed Pennsylvanians millions of dollars unemployed Pennsylvanians millions of dollars Spotlight PA , July 9, 2021 IBM paid Pa. $33M to settle lawsuit over jobless IBM paid Pa. $33M to settle lawsuit over jobless benefits computer project benefits computer project The Patriot-News, September 13, 2021 Free rides take $104M toll on Pennsylvania Turnpike Free rides take $104M toll on Pennsylvania Turnpike finances finances Associated Press, September 14, 2021 11
Kangaroos secret remains safe after Pennsylvania refuses to disclose its location to former Quakertown woman who once owned it Morning Call, February 26, 2021 12
Two Agencies Fined for Acting in Bad Faith Two Agencies Fined for Acting in Bad Faith Uniontown Newspapers vs. Department of Corrections (2020) Commonwealth Court found that the Department of Corrections acted in bad faith in its search for responsive records to a RTKL request and required the Department to pay the newspaper $118,458 in legal fees California University of PA vs. Bradshaw (2021) Commonwealth Court ordered California University of Pennsylvania to pay over $14,000 in legal fees to a newspaper for frivolous conduct and acting in bad faith for how it handled an open records request 13
OOR Study Finds Need for Improvement in Agency OOR Study Finds Need for Improvement in Agency RTKL Webpages RTKL Webpages OOR reviewed RTKL webpages of 135 agencies. Key findings: 91% have RTKL information on their websites as required by law 50% have all three required pieces of information (AORO contact info, OOR contact info, RTKL request form) Best practices: Easy to locate Comprehensive information for agency open records officer Resource account for AORO Printable and electronic request forms Include links to frequently requested items Police departments should include RTKL request info Everything should be provided on one webpage 14
George, Spiess, Chief of Outreach and Training 2021 2021 Annual Annual Training Training SUNSHINE ACT Agenda Requirements November 18, 2021 https://openrecords.pa.gov openrecords@pa.gov @OpenRecordsPA (717) 346-9903
Agendas All agencies must post an agenda of issues to be deliberated on or planned official action at least 24 hours prior to the public meeting. Includes Regular and Special meetings Does not include work sessions, conferences, and Executive Sessions Websites*, agency offices, and meeting sites, and available at the meeting itself *(including other social media platforms i.e.: Facebook) Agenda Provisions, 11.2021
Agendas continued Changing the Agenda - Before the Meeting: di minimus with no expenditure of funds or entering into a contract - During the Meeting: If initiated by the public can be deferred to a future meeting If initiated by the board by majority vote: Reason must be announced prior to official action Amended agenda must be posted within 24 hours Minutes must reflect the change Agenda Provisions, 11.2021
Nathan Byerly, Deputy Director 2021 2021 Annual Annual Training Training CASE LAW UPDATE AND REVIEW November 18, 2021 https://openrecords.pa.gov openrecords@pa.gov @OpenRecordsPA (717) 346-9903
Section 708(b)(10) Section 708(b)(10) predecisional internal predecisional internal deliberative records deliberative records Chester Water Authority v. Pa. Dep't of Cmty. & Econ. Dev. 249 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2021) RTKL request: copies of documents reflecting communications among the Department, Econsult, and the Fairmount Capital and McNees firms (consultants) related to the potential sale of the water authority DCED denied under Section 708(b)(10): The internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or officials or predecisional deliberations between agency members, employees or officials and members, employees or officials of another agency . . ..
Section 708(b)(10) Section 708(b)(10) predecisional internal predecisional internal deliberative records deliberative records The OOR found that the agency communications with consultants were internal to the agency and thus protected under Section 708(b)(10). The Commonwealth Court affirmed stressing the desirability of a frank exchange of ideas and opinions between the agency and its consultants.
Section 708(b)(10) Section 708(b)(10) predecisional internal predecisional internal deliberative records deliberative records The PA Supreme Court disagreed: Section 708(b)(10) does not on its face apply to communications with outside consultants. The statute requires narrow construction. This solidifies the interpretation that private consultants providing services as independent contractors do not qualify as agencies, members, employees, or officials who may engage in protected internal communications.
Bad Faith Bad Faith California University of Pennsylvania v. Bradshaw, No. 1491 C.D. 2018 (October 13, 2021) RTKL request: all records related to donations from Manheim Corporation to the Foundation for University of California between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013, and all records identifying the uses of those funds.
Bad Faith Bad Faith University denied the request stating it did not possess donation records of the Foundation and it did not matter who had the records since access to donor records is protected from disclosure under Section 708(b)(13). The OOR disagreed and granted the appeal. University appealed to Commonwealth Court. Commonwealth Court affirmed the OOR. University filed a petition for allowance of appeal with Pa. Supreme Court which was denied. University contacted Foundation and discovers no such records existed.
Bad Faith Bad Faith In sum, the Court concludes that the University engaged in bad faith and frivolous conduct in denying Respondent's RTKL request. Why? It denied the request without first determining whether the Foundation had potentially responsive records in its possession and then subsequently litigated the denial.
Bad Faith vs. Good Faith Search Bad Faith vs. Good Faith Search Uniontown Newspapers v. DOC, 243 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2020) Request for documentation of illnesses contracted by inmates and/or staff members at SCI-Fayette. Court held Department of Corrections acted in bad faith at the request stage under the Right to Know Law in significant part because the agency open records officer (AORO) failed to act with diligence in response to appellee's request as required by 502(b)(1).
Bad Faith vs. Good Faith Search Bad Faith vs. Good Faith Search Uniontown Newspapers v. DOC, 243 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2020) AORO did not: review the request with the Bureau of Health Care Services; question assumptions or the narrow interpretation of the request by the Bureau; did not take any steps to confirm whether the only records that existed other than those generated in the ongoing investigation were medical records.
Good Faith Search Good Faith Search Elements of a good faith search: Advise all custodians of potentially responsive records about the request Agents within its control, including third party contractors Employees includes personal devices Obtain all potentially responsive records from those in possession AORO has duty to review the records and assess their public nature If unsure that records are responsive, employees should give records to the AORO for assessment Employees and contractors should not be independently deciding if the records fall under an exemption responsive records should go to the AORO for that determination Follow-up on inconsistencies, assumptions and inaccuracies
Good Faith Search Good Faith Search Additional notes: Failure to search recordsin an agency s possession for responsive records during the request stage constitutes bad faith. An AORO is meeting duty of diligence when "direct[ing] requests to other appropriate persons within the agency. The AORO does not fulfill his or her obligation simply by relying on the representations of others without inquiring as to what investigation was made and without reviewing the records upon which the individual responding to the request relied. An agency s failure to locate responsive records until motivated by litigation shows bad faith, meriting consideration by a fact-finder.
Bad Faith Bad Faith Uniontown Court also held: Proof of bad faith does not require establishing fraud or corruption. Rather, an abandonment of mandatory duties by an agency, including performance of a detailed search and review of records to ascertain if the requested material exists, or if any exclusion may apply, prior to denial of access will support a finding of bad faith. (citing Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Dorsey, 97 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)).
Corporate Donor Names are Public Corporate Donor Names are Public California University of Pa. v. Bradshaw, 210 A.3d 1134 (Pa.Cmwlth 2019) Request: Records related to donations between Manheim Corporation and a university fund. Holding: Section 708(b)(13) of the RTKL uses the term individual (as do other exemptions) rather than person to refer to exempt donor identities, and therefore the exemption applies only to the identities of natural persons, not corporate entities.
Case Law Update Case Law Update Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 232 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2020) School bus video did not constitute an education record under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C.S. 1232g, because the school district failed to show that it was exempt from disclosure under 65 Pa. Stat. Ann. 67.708(b)(1)(i), as the school district did not demonstrate it would lose federal funding as a result of disclosure. The order included instructions to the school district to redact students' images from the video prior to disclosure.
Case Law Update Case Law Update Payne v. Dept. of Health, 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 700 (Pa. 2020) Scores alone do not demonstrate any deliberation among the agency s employees. Where an agency regularly releases a type of information, it cannot claim that information is internal and confidential in other situations. Darlington v. Dept. Of Labor & Industry, 2020 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 451 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2020) Routine boiler inspections are not exempt under Section 708(b)(17) because the language of the statute differentiates between inspections and investigations, the statute permits inspection by certified third parties rather than agents of the Department of Labor & Industry, the agency did not show that the routine inspections involved the kind of comprehensive inspections which occurred in prior cases, and because there was no apparent public policy which justifies withholding the documents
Case Law Update Case Law Update McKelvey v. Pa. Department of Health, 255 A.3d 385 (Pa. 2021) Request for all of the medical marijuana business permit applications pursuant to the RTKL DOH allowed applicants to redact information the third parties believed should be redacted. DOH did not independently review the applications or redactions. Because the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) did not allow an agency to delegate its disclosure duties or defer to the redactions of third parties, the Department of Health's failure to independently review the redactions by applicants seeking permits to grow, process or dispense medical marijuana was not in accord with the RTKL.
Arguments & Evidence Not Submitted to OOR Arguments & Evidence Not Submitted to OOR Might be Waived Might be Waived Mission Pa., LLC v. McKelvey,2019 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 528 Request: Applications for grower/processor and dispensary permits for medical marijuana. Holding: Third parties which have a full opportunity to submit this information to the OOR and fail to do so do may not have a right to submit that information on appeal to the court.
Liz Wagenseller, Executive Director 2021 2021 Annual Annual Training Training LOOKING AHEAD TO 2022 November 18, 2021 https://openrecords.pa.gov openrecords@pa.gov @OpenRecordsPA (717) 346-9903
Pending Legislation of Note Pending Legislation of Note Vexatious requestors (HB1457/SB552) Commercial requestors (SB312) Agency use of trade secret exemption (HB 296) Amend Disease Prevention and Control Law (HB1893) 36
In Development at OOR In Development at OOR Electronic docketing system All steps of appeal process conducted on portal accessed via OOR website Promulgation of regulations of appeals process Rework of website 37
Agency Responses: Areas for Improvement Agency Responses: Areas for Improvement Submitting conclusory affidavits, in which an agency provides a legal argument or conclusion instead of facts. Example, These records are not subject to the RTKL is conclusory; the agency must explain factually why the records are not subject Insufficient searches for records, when an agency does not prove that they did a thorough search for potentially responsive records. For example, affirming that a third-party contractor searched their records Declining to reach out to a requester to narrow down a request. The RTKL does not prevent an agency from calling a requester in an attempt to better ascertain the records they seek. A brief conversation can often save the agency hours of time and even prevent an appeal. 38
Additional Questions? Additional Questions? Today s training has been recorded and will be posted to our website. If we did not answer your questions today or you have more questions, contact us: Via website form: https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/ContactOOR.cfm, Via email: openrecords@pa.gov, or Via phone: 717-346-9903. Submitted questions are records under the RTKL. OOR website has resources for agencies & requesters https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/
