Nov 6-12, 2014 - In This Issue:

Gaming Control Board v. Office of Open Records, 67 MAP 2013, November 10, 2014
- Reversed
- Section 703: Requests MUST be addressed to the agency open records officer

The Court held that to comply with the RTKL a Requester need make "at least some positive indication that the intended recipient of the written request is the agency's open-records officer, whether that officer be identified by name or by title, whether the requestor sends his request to the open-records officer's specific email address or fax number, or whether the requestor actually places his request directly in the hands of the open-records officer." The Court notes that mere citation to the RTKL is not enough. An agency then has five business days after the Request is received by the open records officer to respond

 

Quarels v. Pa. Dept. of Correction, 901 C.D. 2014, November 10, 2014 - Affirmed: RTKL appeal is not the proper forum to seek release from prison
- Records do not exist
- Sentencing Order

Requester, an inmate with the Department of Corrections, was denied access to a "Judgment of Sentence Order" that the Department asserts does not exist in the Department's possession.

 

On appeal to the Commonwealth Court the Requester "abandoned his RTKL Request" and asked the Court to order his release from prison. The Requester contends that without a Judgment Order the Department cannot detain him. The Court found that the Requester sought relief beyond the scope of the appeal and affirmed the denial. 

 

OOR Decisions

Philadelphia Daily News v. Philadelphia Prison System 
- Denied: Complaints and statistics related to excessive use of force

- Section 708(b)(16) - criminal investigation

- Section 708(b)(17) - noncriminal investigation

- Granted: Investigative exemption applies only to the records of the agency conducting the investigation
- Section 708(b)(16) - criminal investigation

The Commission partially denied the Request asserting that certain records are protected by the criminal investigation exemption of the RTKL.  The Commission attests that prior to the Request it was aware that Requester is the subject of a federal investigation regarding the unlawful possession of wild animals.  The records withheld are those that would be used as evidence by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the upcoming federal case. The OOR ordered release of the records stating the investigation in this case is being conducted by an entity other than the Commission, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal law enforcement agency, which is not an "agency" under the RTKL.

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act expressly provides meeting attendees with a right to record those meetings: Section 711(a) states: 

At the recent Office of Open Records' Annual Training on the RTKL and Sunshine Act held in Harrisburg, Charles Brown, chief counsel for the OOR, advised that members of the public who audio or video record public meetings should be aware that such recordings could be illegal.  In a follow up conversation, attorney Brown advised that he mentioned this only because there is a Pennsylvania criminal statute  that places restrictions on recording another's voice.  Attorney Brown confirmed that he is not aware of any cases where an individual has been charged under the Wiretap Act for recording public meetings as permitted by the Sunshine Act. 

If you need assistance with a Sunshine Act matter, contact us at 717-657-1597 or via email at info@recordslaw.com to see if we can help.  

If you missed the 2014 Annual Training presented by the Office of Open Records in Harrisburg, you can watch it courtesy of PCN TV here.

Audrey offers consulting services to review your current policies, draft new policies or revise existing policies, and provide a detailed plan on how to manage records and respond to RTKL requests in an efficient and cost effective manner that increases public confidence in your agency.

 Is a "good faith" search always required? Commonwealth Court to decide.

Happy Fall!