Appeals Filed in the First Half of 2016

Open records_logo stackedA total of 1,146 appeals were filed with the Office of Open Records in the first half of 2016. Here’s the monthly breakdown:

  • January – 122
  • February – 317
  • March – 184
  • April – 141
  • May – 198
  • June – 184

That’s the second-busiest first half of the year ever at the OOR. Here’s a comparison of appeals filed in the first six months of each year the OOR has existed:

  • 2016 (Jan. to June) – 1,146
  • 2015 (Jan. to June) – 1,181
  • 2014 (Jan. to June) – 1,017
  • 2013 (Jan. to June) – 1,129
  • 2012 (Jan. to June) – 1,064
  • 2011 (Jan. to June) – 908
  • 2010 (Jan. to June) – 601
  • 2009 (Jan. to June) – 560

Senate Bill 413 – OOR Testimony

Open records_logo stackedSenate Bill 413, introduced by Senator Rich Alloway, would extensively revise provisions related to the practice and procedure of Commonwealth agencies, establish the Office of Administrative Hearings, and extensively revise provisions on judicial review of Commonwealth agency action.

The Senate State Government Committee, chaired by Senator Mike Folmer, held a public hearing this week on SB 413.

I provided this written testimony to the committee, emphasizing the unique nature of the Office of Open Records — that the vast majority of our cases involve people who are not represented by an attorney. As established in the Right-to-Know Law, the OOR’s appeal process was always intended to be simple, inexpensive, and relatively quick.

Senate Bill 413 – Written Testimony

Presentation to Criminal Justice Advisory Committee

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)

Pennsylvania’s New Medical Marijuana Act

by J. Chadwick Schnee
Assistant Chief Counsel

On April 17, 2016, Governor Wolf signed Senate Bill 3, prime-sponsored by Senator Mike Folmer and also known as the Medical Marijuana Act, into law as Act 16 of 2016. Although the connection between medical marijuana and the Right-to-Know Law may not be obvious, the Medical Marijuana Act contains several provisions involving public access to records related to medical marijuana.

Continue reading

Open Data Initiative for Pennsylvania

Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf announced an open data initiative for Pennsylvania, something I’m very excited about. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming months, but for now here’s the Governor’s complete press release (and here’s a link to the Executive Order he signed).

***

Governor Wolf Announces Open Data Initiative to Engage Citizens in Innovative Policy Solutions

April 19, 2016

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf signed an executive order today to release agency data to the public in open, machine readable formats.

“One of our most valuable and underutilized resources in state government is data,” said Governor Wolf. “Our goal is to make data available in order to engage citizens, create economic opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs, and develop innovative policy solutions that improve program delivery and streamline operations.”

Continue reading

Public Employee Email Addresses

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

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.