Never pay more than $0.50 per request and the first one is FREE! Pricing details here.
PA Office of Open Records Policy Conflicts with Right-to-Know Law: Key Inconsistencies Exposed
Inconsistencies Between the PA Office of Open Records' Communication and the Right-to-Know Law
Recently, we received an email from the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) regarding the submission of appeals, which appears to contradict the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) and common principles of public service. Below, we will highlight the inconsistencies between the OOR’s communication and the actual provisions of the RTKL, which governs access to public records in Pennsylvania.
The Communication from the PA Office of Open Records
We were informed by the OOR via an email stating the following:
“Executive Director Wagenseller and Deputy Director Byerly have been forwarded emails that appear to be appeals to the OOR. Please note that OOR policy requires that appeals be emailed to [email protected]. Please see the attached. We are unable to accept appeals sent to any other email address. If you wish to file appeals through email, kindly send them to [email protected], per the OOR’s policy.
If you are unable to email the appeals, you may use the OOR’s electronic appeal form found on our website. We also accept appeals via facsimile, postal mail, or hand delivery. Contact information for doing so can be found on our website.”
While this email may sound reasonable at first glance, it does not fully align with the RTKL, which clearly sets out how appeals should be handled.
What the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law Actually States
Under Section 1101(a) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (RTKL):
“If a written request for access to a record is denied or deemed denied, the requester may file an appeal with the Office of Open Records or judicial, legislative, or other appeals officer designated under section 503(d) within 15 business days of the mailing date of the agency’s response or within 15 business days of a deemed denial. The appeal shall state the grounds upon which the requester asserts that the record is a public record, legislative record, or financial record and shall address any grounds stated by the agency for delaying or denying the request.”
Key Points from the RTKL:
- No Requirement to Send to a Specific Email Address:
- The RTKL does not specify that appeals must be sent to a specific email address. It simply states that appeals must be filed with the OOR or the appropriate appeals officer. The law mandates that appeals be accepted as long as they are submitted within the specified timeframe and meet the content requirements.
- Forwarding Appeals to the Appropriate Officer:
- The RTKL emphasizes the importance of accessibility and transparency in the appeals process. Any appeals received by the OOR, regardless of which email address they are sent to, should be forwarded to the appropriate Open Records Officer or appeals officer for proper handling, in line with the principles of public service and good governance.
- Accessibility for All Citizens:
- The Right-to-Know Law is designed to promote transparency and accessibility for all citizens. By restricting the acceptance of appeals to only one email address, the OOR’s policy seems to create an unnecessary barrier that contradicts the spirit of the law. The law provides flexibility in how appeals can be submitted, including via email, fax, postal mail, or hand delivery, without restricting specific email addresses.
Concerns About the OOR’s Communication and Policy
- Contradiction with the Right-to-Know Law’s Intentions
The email from the OOR suggests that appeals sent to any email address other than [email protected] will not be processed. This is not supported by the RTKL, which does not mandate such restrictions. The law’s language is clear that appeals should be handled efficiently and transparently, regardless of the submission method or specific email address.
- Potential Denial of Appeals Due to Policy Overreach
The OOR’s insistence that appeals must be sent to a specific email address introduces an unnecessary procedural hurdle that could result in the improper denial of valid appeals. This practice undermines the intention of the RTKL, which aims to provide fair and open access to government records.
- The Responsibility to Forward Appeals
As a public agency dedicated to transparency, the OOR should ensure that any appeal received, regardless of the email address, is promptly forwarded to the designated appeals officer. This would align with both the RTKL’s requirements and the broader principles of public service.
- The Importance of Public Trust and Fair Access
The right to appeal is a fundamental component of the RTKL, and any policy that limits how appeals can be submitted can erode public trust. Ensuring that appeals are processed efficiently and fairly, regardless of which email they are sent to, is essential to maintaining transparency and accountability.
Conclusion: A Call for Alignment with the Right-to-Know Law
The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records must align its policies and practices with the spirit and letter of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. Any communication or policy that restricts the ways appeals are accepted must be reconsidered to ensure it does not undermine the law’s fundamental purpose—providing open and fair access to public records for all citizens.
We urge the OOR to review its policy and ensure that it complies with the RTKL, ensuring that all appeals, regardless of which email address they are sent to, are forwarded to the appropriate officer and processed in a fair, timely, and transparent manner.
Contact Information
For further information, please contact the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records Deputy Director:
Deputy Director
Nathanial Byerly
Office of Open Records
333 Market Street, 16th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101-2234
Phone: (717) 346-9903
Email: [email protected]
