Previously, this blog address how the Office of Open Records, in Steinheiser v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, AP 2019-1877 (Nov. 6, 2019), confirmed that local agencies are not required to provide original...more
In Steinheiser v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, AP 2019-1877 (Nov. 6, 2019), the Requester sought the business card of SEPTA’s Open Records Officer. In response, SEPTA provided a scanned copy of the card. ...more
In Maciejewski v. Southern Columbia Area School District, AP 2019-1094 (Sept 16, 2019), the Request sought all emails between 10 District email addresses over a 14-day time frame. The District argued that certain responsive...more
In Frederick v. Caln Township Police Department, AP 2019-1059 (Aug. 1, 2019), the requester sought an update on his case against another individual by submitting a RTKL request to the police department (“Department”). ...more
In Ruland v. Southern York County School District, AP 2019-0567 (Aug. 8, 2019), the OOR concluded that, in certain circumstances, emails from community members to an agency can be public records.
In this case, the...more
In Friedman v. Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, AP 2019-1182 (Aug. 28, 2019), the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) discussed whether all records delivered to and in the possession of an agency are records “of” that agency...more
An entity must be a Commonwealth agency, a local agency, a judicial agency or a legislative agency to be subject to the RTKL. 65 P.S. § 67.302. In Pysher v. Clinton Township Vol. Fire Co., 1237 C.D. 2017, 2019 WL 2017782, at...more
We’ve addressed whether RTKL request are sufficiently specific before, but it’s worth reexamining the issue again in the context of requests for electronic correspondence because requesters frequently make broad requests for...more
When responding to large requests, Open Records Officer frequently identify records that are responsive to one part of a request but not another. Does the response letter need to identify which records are responsive to each...more
Last week, we discussed how the OOR concluded that, for the most part, Taser discharge reports are public records. This week, we’ll examine whether policies related to Tasers are public records. In Ciavaglia v. Newtown...more
In Ciavaglia v. New Hope Borough, AP 2019-0707 (June 19, 2019), the Requester sought copies of “Taser Usage Report Forms” from the Borough. The Borough denied the Request, arguing that the records relate to criminal and...more
The 30 exceptions set forth in Section 708(b) of RTKL are not an exhaustive list of records that can or must be withheld from disclosure under the RTKL. Instead, Section 102 of the RTKL contains a catch-all, stating that any...more
In California U. of Pennsylvania v. Bradshaw, 1491 C.D. 2018, 2019 WL 2305947, (Pa. Cmmw. May 31, 2019), the Commonwealth Court affirmed the Office of Open Records’ conclusion that “only the identities of natural persons are...more
Last week, we discussed a case where the OOR found that certain records in the possession of a third party were beyond the scope of Section 506(d)(1) of the RTKL. This week, we’ll discuss a case where the OOR concluded...more
Under the RTKL, two groups of records are accessible—those records in an agency’s actual or constructive possession reached directly under Section 901 of the RTKL and records that are only in the possession of third parties...more
In Galvez v. West York Area School District, AP 2019-0267 (May 15, 2019), a reporter requested a portion of a school bus surveillance video depicting a student altercation. The District denied the request, arguing that the...more
In Guydish v. Crestwood School District, AP 2019-0643, the requester sought copies of the statements of financial interests filed by the school district’s current school board members pursuant to the Public Official and...more
Open Records Officers will occasionally receive requests for the appointment calendars of certain agency employees and officers. These calendars, whether electronic or paper, typically contain a schedule daily activities and...more
In a previous post, we discussed how the OOR in Stooky v. Unionville-Chadds School District, AP 2019-0484 (April 18, 2019) determined that a Requester could seek records under the RTKL even though she already possessed the...more
In the previous post we discussed how a “common sense” reason for denying a request (e.g., the requested records are subject to a pending RTKL appeal), was rejected by the OOR because that reason was not supported by the...more
The goal of this blog is to make Open Records Officers aware of their duties and obligations under the RTKL and to publicize interesting and important Office of Open Record determinations that highlight rules and procedures...more
When responding to RTKL requests, Open Records Officers biggest concern is inadvertently disclosing information that could put people in danger. While such records are generally exempt from disclosure, it is the agency’s...more
Under the RTKL (Sections 708(b)(12), 708(b)(17), Attorney-Client Privilege/Attorney-Work Product Doctrine) – Responding to Requests.
Requesters, instead of seeking specific records, occasionally ask for a collection of...more
Pursuant to Section 705 of the RTKL, when responding to a request, “an agency shall not be required to create a record which does not currently exist or to compile, maintain, format or organize a record in a manner in which...more
RTKL (Sections 701, 705, 901 1307 of the RTKL) – Responding to a RTKL Request.
One of the most confusing issues an Open Records Officer faces is determining whether they may charge duplication costs when responding to a...more