Allegheny County Department of Administrative Services v. Parsons
61 A.3d 336
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Requester sought payroll-related records from ASCI through the County under RTKL.
- ASCI is a private nonprofit contractor performing social services for the County, including kinship foster care, adoption and related services.
- ASCI employs individuals whose names, birth dates and hire dates were requested; the County argued it had no records in its possession.
- This Court previously remanded to determine whether contractor records are accessible under RTKL section 506(d) and whether exemptions apply, after finding the contract’s direct relation to the governmental function was not adequately shown.
- On remand, the trial court found no direct relation between the requested employee information and ASCI’s performance of the contract; it also questioned the applicability of Personal Security and suggested Personal Identification protection for birth dates.
- Requester challenged the trial court’s conclusions; this Court affirmatively held that 506(d) requires direct relation to performance, which was not shown, and that personal identification protection for birth dates does not categorically apply.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether third-party contractor records can be accessed under 506(d). | Requester argues direct relation to contract oversight. | County/ASCI contends records do not directly relate to performance of the governmental function. | Not directly related; access denied. |
| Whether ASCI employee identities directly relate to performance of the contractual function. | Identities are necessary for oversight of performance. | Job performance can be monitored without names; redacted data suffices. | Names, DOB, and hire dates do not directly relate to performance; not subject to 506(d). |
| Whether the Personal Security (708(b)(1)(ii)) exception applies to the records. | ASCI preserved a defense to withhold on personal security grounds. | The record does not show specific threat or harm to security. | Personal Security exception not shown; not applicable. |
| Whether the Personal Identification (708(b)(6)) exception applies to birth dates. | Birth dates are protected as personal identification information. | Birth dates not categorically exempt; existing authorities limit protection. | Birth dates are not categorically exempt; not protected under Personal Identification. |
| Whether the remand scope permitted addressing the Personal Identification exception. | Scope allowed full consideration of all exemptions. | Waiver and remand scope did not authorize untimely or broader defenses. | ASCI waived Personal Identification defense; remand scope not extended. |
Key Cases Cited
- ASCI I, 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (remand on 506(d) direct relation and Personal Security/Personal Identification analysis)
- E. Stroudsburg Univ. Found. v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (interpreting 506(d) broadly for records directly related to government function)
- Buehl v. Office of Open Records, 6 A.3d 27 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (records related to contractor payments not directly related to function)
- Giurintano v. Department of General Services, 20 A.3d 613 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (subcontracts with interpreters must directly relate to performing services)
- Edinboro Univ. v. Ford, 18 A.3d 1278 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (payroll records of private contractor; possession and 506(d) considerations)
- Schaefer ex rel. Philadelphia Inquirer v. Delaware County, 45 A.3d 1149 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (birth dates not categorically exempt under Personal Identification)
- Purcell v. Governor’s Office, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (birth dates not categorically exempt under Personal Security exception)
- SWB Yankees, LLC v. Wintermantel/The Scranton Times Tribune, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (redefines access; private contractor records can be public if directly related to government function)