Presentation to PA-NENA in Stroudsburg

Open records_logo stackedLast Friday, I traveled to Stroudsburg and spoke to members of the Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Emergency Number Association (PA-NENA) about the Right-to-Know Law, the Office of Open Records, and related issues.

It was a great discussion, and I very much appreciate the invitation.

Here’s the presentation I used:

PA-NENA – May 12, 2017 – PDF
PA-NENA – May 12, 2017 – PPTX


10 Examples of Records the RTKL Provided Access to in 2016

Here’s a sampling of the types of records which the Right-to-Know Law provided access to in 2016:

  1. $2 million paid by Philadelphia School District to defend itself in lawsuits related to a no-bid contract for surveillance cameras.
  2. More than $436,000 paid to defend former Attorney General Kathleen Kane in lawsuits filed by former employees.
  3. The misallocation of cash confiscated from suspected drug dealers in Cambria County.
  4. The fact that the Pittsburgh Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority was missing financial records and its former director used an ICA debit card for questionable spending. Legislation reforming the ICA, Act 99 of 2016, was subsequently enacted.
  5. $195,000 paid by the State Police to settle a claim that a man was jailed for nearly a month after troopers using a field drug test mistook soap for cocaine.
  6. A recommendation, which was never implemented, to install flashing lights at a railroad crossing where a woman was subsequently killed.
  7. A partially redacted report on the Gettysburg Police Department, including recommendations stemming from an officer’s use of a Taser during an arrest.
  8. $690,000 paid by Moon Area School District to settle a gender discrimination lawsuit.
  9. Documents showing that a PPL executive called the company’s storm room to ask about an outage in his neighborhood, leading to a delay in service restoration for other customers.
  10. Records showing that the Manheim Township School Board authorized a firm to begin searching for a new superintendent before taking a public vote.

7 Top Appellate Court Decisions in 2016

These are some of the most significant appellate court decisions issued in 2016 regarding Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law.

148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that Article I, Section 1, of the state constitution protects personal information such as home addresses. When a record contains such personal information, a balancing test must be performed to determine whether the interest in disclosure outweighs the interest in privacy.

Commonwealth v. Engelkemier
148 A.3d 522 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)

On the issue of specificity, the Commonwealth Court affirmed an OOR Final Determination which held that a keyword list can be sufficient to describe the subject matter in a RTK request, depending on the overall context of the request. The court emphasized the three-part test used to determine whether a request is specific enough under the RTKL, examining the extent to which the request sets forth (1) the subject matter, (2) the scope of documents, and (3) the timeframe.

142 A.3d 1023 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)

The Commonwealth Court held that in cases involving voluminous records, the OOR may consider a claim by an agency that it cannot conduct a proper review of the responsive records within the RTKL’s timeline. The agency must provide an estimated number of records and the length of time required to review the records, along with — if the records are electronic — any anticipated difficulty in delivering them.

PUC v. Seder
139 A.3d 165 (Pa. 2016)

The Supreme Court upheld the OOR’s analysis of the Public Utility Code regarding the required disclosure of a “tip letter” and an investigative file associated with a settlement agreement.

Township of Worchester v. OOR
129 A.3d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)

The Commonwealth Court held that the OOR, which serves as fact-finder in RTKL appeals, has broad discretion to order in camera review of records.

Grine v. County of Centre
138 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)

The Commonwealth Court found that when financial records of a judicial agency documenting activities of judicial personnel are in the possession of, or shared by, a non-judicial agency, those records must nonetheless be requested from the judicial agency “to ensure the judiciary retains control of its records.”

In re Phila. Dist. Attorney’s Office
2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 55

The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas found that the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office acted in bad faith when it did not provide records as ordered by the OOR. The court imposed a $500 penalty. Note: The Commonwealth Court upheld this ruling in early 2017, stating that “the Trial Court made the requisite factual findings, supported by substantial record evidence, to conclude as a matter of law that the District Attorney acted in bad faith.”

Other significant cases from 2016 — and previous years — are available on the OOR website.

Presentation at Body-Worn Cameras CLE

Open records_logo stackedOn Friday, I took part in Forensic Friday, a regular program organized by Duquesne University’s Cyril H. Wecht Institute of Forensic Science and Law.

The topic was Balancing Safety, Justice and Privacy: Body-Worn Cameras, Forensic Evidence & the Right to Know.

Also taking part in the program were State Senator Randy Vulakovich; State Representative Dom Costa; former State Representative David Mayernik; Commander Clarence Trapp, head of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police’s Special Deployment Division; and Duquesne University School of Law Professor John Rago.

It was a great event and a great discussion, and I very much appreciate the invitation to participate.

Here’s the presentation I used:

Body-Worn Cameras CLE – Jan. 27, 2017 – PDF
Body-Worn Cameras CLE – Jan. 27, 2017 – PPTX