Right-to-Know Law

CLE at Widener University Commonwealth Law School

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Open records_logo stackedEarlier today, Charles Brown (Chief Counsel at the Office of Open Records) and I spoke at a continuing legal education at Widener University Commonwealth Law School in Harrisburg. This presentation was also recorded by PCN for airing at a later date.

We enjoyed the great questions and thank the school for inviting us.

Here’s the presentation I used:

Widener Presentation – Erik Arneson – Sept. 27, 2016 – PPTX
Widener Presentation – Erik Arneson – Sept. 27, 2016 – PDF

And here’s the presentation Charles used:

Widener Presentation – Charles Brown – Sept. 27, 2016 – PPTX
Widener Presentation – Charles Brown – Sept. 27, 2016 – PDF

OOR Adopts New RTKL Fee Structure

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Open records_logo stackedSection 1307 of the Right-To-Know Law requires the Office of Open Records to establish a fee structure for Commonwealth agencies and local agencies. Section 1310 of the RTKL requires the OOR to review that fee structure every other year.

Today, the OOR adopted a new Official RTKL Fee Structure which can be viewed in its entirety here.

Prior to publishing a Draft Update to the Official Fee Structure this year, the OOR prepared a review of recent appellate court cases and Final Determinations issued since the last fee review in July 2014; a comparative analysis of fees assessed by various Pennsylvania agencies; a review of fees charged by copy/printing businesses located in various cities and municipalities across the Commonwealth; and recommendations for future fee reviews. That nine-page document is available here.

On Monday, Aug. 1, 2016, the OOR published the Draft Update to the Official Fee Structure and solicited public comment on the draft update. The draft update was published on the OOR Executive Director’s blog, with notice being prominently displayed on the Fee Structure page of the OOR website. Notice was also provided to subscribers of the OOR’s email newsletter, as well as numerous times on both the OOR’s Twitter feed and the Executive Director’s Twitter feed.

Public comments were accepted through Friday, Aug. 19, 2016. The OOR received nine substantive comments on the Draft Update to the Official Fee Structure. (One comment was received on Aug. 22, 2016, and is included among the nine the OOR received.) Comments were provided by four individual requesters, one attorney, one statewide media organization, and three employees of local agencies.

Continue reading →

PA’s Right-to-Know Law: The Basics – Videos

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

The Office of Open Records has produced four videos, all available at our new YouTube channel.

These videos describe some of the basics of Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law.

Introduction to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law:

How to File a Request Under PA’s Right-to-Know Law:

How to Respond to a Request Under PA’s Right-to-Know-Law:

How to File an Appeal Under PA’s Right-to-Know-Law:

We plan to produce more videos in the future. If you have suggestions on topics you’d like to see covered, please contact the Office of Open Records or post a comment below.

Presentation to PA Assoc. of Nonprofit Organizations

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Open records_logo stackedYesterday, I took part in the fall conference of the Pennsylvania Association of Nonprofit Organizations. I hosted a seminar called “New Data Resources” and spoke about the Right-to-Know Law, the open data movement, and related topics.

My thanks to PANO for for inviting me to speak.

Here’s the presentation I used:
Pennsylvania Assoc. of Nonprofit Organizations – Sept. 13, 2016 – PPTX
Pennsylvania Assoc. of Nonprofit Organizations – Sept. 13, 2016 – PDF

Commonwealth Court Weighs in on Large RTKL Requests

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Open records_logo stackedThis week, Commonwealth Court issued a ruling in Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (SSHE) v. Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF).

One of the issues was whether or not the original Right-to-Know Law request submitted by APSCUF to SSHE was specific enough under Section 703 of the RTKL. On that issue, the court upheld the OOR’s finding that the request was specific.

The court then discussed SSHE’s position that, because the request was for such a large volume of records, it couldn’t have responded within the time period established by the RTKL. (SSHE “contends that it was incapable of reasonably discerning whether any exemptions applied to this matter because it neither had the time nor resources to fully review the sizeable volume of records produced by Requesters’ requests in the time-period it was given to do so.”)

Continue reading →

Presentation to Criminal Justice Advisory Committee

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Earlier today, I was pleased to speak to the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee, a committee under the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, in Harrisburg.

The topic was video records such as bodycams and dashcams, how they’re currently handled under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, pending legislation on the topic, and other related issues.

My thanks to the Chairman, Representative Mike Vereb, for inviting me to speak.

Here’s the presentation I used:

Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Presentation (PDF)
Criminal Justice Advisory Committee Presentation (PPTX)

Public Employee Email Addresses

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

A recent Commonwealth Court decision, Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education v. The Fairness Center, upheld a decision by the Office of Open Records that agency-issued e-mail addresses held out to the public must be released in response to a Right-to-Know request, but that any agency-issued e-mail addresses not held out to the public may be withheld.

In the unreported decision, the Court held that:

“On appeal, PASSHE argues that agency-issued e-mail addresses for its faculty and coaches are all personal and not subject to disclosure, regardless of whether those addresses are primary or secondary in nature. To the contrary, we conclude that the OOR correctly determined that the e-mail addresses at issue could be divided into two categories: those e-mail addresses that were not held out to the public or publically accessible and those that were held out to the public as places where faculty and coaches could be contacted.

“As OOR held and consistent with our case law applying the personal identification information exemption to agency-issued e-mail addresses, we agree with that differentiation and with OOR’s determination that the former type of e-mail addresses should be protected from disclosure and the latter should be subject to disclosure.”

Social Media and the RTKL

/ Liz Wagenseller / Leave a comment

Open records_logo stackedTo date, few appeals made to the Office of Open Records have involved social media. In one recent case, Davis v. City of Butler Police Department, the requester sought the following social media records (the request has been lightly edited for clarity):

  1. All posts made by users to the Butler City Police Department and Butler City K9 Fundraiser Facebook pages between Feb. 6, 2016, and Feb. 12, 2016.
  2. A list of all personnel who operate the Butler City Police Department Facebook page, including full name, salary, and date of hire.
  3. A list of all users who have been blocked from the Butler City Police Department Facebook page.

The OOR found that the Police Department demonstrated that no responsive records exist regarding the first item. During the appeal, the Department provided the requester with records responsive to the second item.

As to the third item, the OOR directed the Department to provide a screenshot of its Facebook page indicating whether any banned users were listed.

The Department provided the screenshots, but also said in its filing that “it is outside [the OOR’s] authority to direct [the Department] to compile records that are not maintained in the ordinary course of business.” See 65 P.S. § 67.705. The OOR held that the Department did not create or compile a record when it provided the OOR with the requested screenshot from its Facebook page; rather, it produced information from a database which was created by and is under the direct control of the Department.

I predicted in our 2015 Annual Report that the OOR will face more issues involving social media records. This case is a good example.