Lowry v. Rose Tree Media School District, AP 2024-2478 (Dec. 5, 2024). The Office of Open Records holds that registration forms for a cross-country meet that was organized and run by a booster group on school district property are not records of the school district.
BACKGROUND
A requester submitted a request for records (“Request”) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) to the District seeking all “registrations for the 9/14/24 Penncrest Invitational Cross-Country Meet” at the District’s High School (“Event”). The District denied the Request, asserting that no such records exist because the Event was directed and conducted by the Penncrest Cross-Country Booster Club (“Booster Group”) and was neither sponsored nor run by the District.
DISCUSSION
The RTKL defines a “record” as “information, regardless of physical form or characteristics, that documents a transaction or activity of an agency and that is created, received, or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business, or activity of the agency.” 65 P.S. § 67.102. The RTKL imposes a two-part inquiry for determining if certain material is a record: 1) does the material document a “transaction or activity of an agency?” and 2) if so, was the material “created, received, or retained … in connection with a transaction, business, or activity of [an] agency?” See 65 P.S. § 67.102.
The Requester argued that the requested registrations were records of the District because: 1) the Cross-Country Meet was held on District property; 2) the registration forms were to be sent to the “Girls Cross Country Team” at the address for the District’s High School; 3) the head coach for the District’s High School Girls Cross Country Team was listed as the contact person for the Event on one website; 4) checks submitted by participants in the Event were to be made payable to the District’s “Girls XC Team”; 5) registration forms used the school’s logo; and 6) the District’s website, via a connecting website, lists various team sporting events for the year, including this Event.
The District countered that: 1) the Event was directed and conducted by the Booster Group which is a separate entity from the District and over which the District has no control or authority; 2) all participant registrations and checks issued for participation in the Event were received by and processed through the Booster Group with the District receiving neither copies of participant registrations nor copies of any checks issued for participation in the Event; 3) several entities are permitted to use the District’s logos; 4) the District had no control or responsibility for the Event, even though it was located on District property at District facilities; 5) District personnel that attended the Event did so in a volunteer capacity or as a parent and were not compensated by the District for attending; 6) the registration forms mailed to the District were turned over to the Booster Group without retention; 7) the District did not receive any money from the Event.
The OOR (Office of Open Records) acknowledged that the record presented factors supportive of both positions but held that the requested registration forms did not document a “transaction or activity” of the District. In reaching this conclusion, the OOR emphasized that the Booster Group had primary control over the Event, processed the registration forms, and did not transfer any of the money to the District. In addition, the record was devoid of any evidence that the District took any action leading up to the Event and that its employees did not participate in the Event in their capacity as District employees.
PRACTICAL ADVICE
This determination confirms that booster groups are separate entities from school districts and that, because of this distinction, records in the possession of such groups are not necessarily records of the school district and subject to the RTKL. In addition, this determination also confirms that records related to events held on school district property by private groups are not necessarily public records.
This determination should not be interpreted, however, as protecting all booster group records from disclosure under the RTKL. For example, school districts, pursuant to Section 511 of the School Code and related policies, require booster groups to submit financial records, such as bank statements, to the school district. Because the School Code creates a statutory duty to oversee the funds of booster groups, records provided to the school district reflect a “transaction or activity” of the school district, are records of the school district, and may be subject to access under the RTKL. See Drapp v. Cumberland Valley School District, AP 2025-0069 (holding that bank statement provided to the school district by a booster group pursuant to the School Code and school district policy are records of the school district). Accordingly, if your school district receives any requests for records related to a booster group, you should contact your solicitor.
