124 A.3d 1225
Pa.2015Background
- In January 2015 outgoing Governor Corbett appointed Erik Arneson as Executive Director of the Office of Open Records (OOR) for a six-year term (with possible reappointment).
- On January 20, 2015, Governor Wolf terminated Arneson on the first day of his administration.
- Arneson filed a mandamus and declaratory relief action in Commonwealth Court, arguing the Governor’s removal violated the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Right to Know Law (RTKL).
- The Commonwealth Court held the RTKL manifested legislative intent to give the Executive Director a fixed six-year term and to limit removal to cause, and it reinstated Arneson.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed, adopting the Commonwealth Court’s analysis and emphasizing the OOR’s unique, independent, sui generis status and the need to insulate its Executive Director from gubernatorial at-will removal.
- A single justice dissented, concluding the Governor had constitutional authority to remove the Executive Director.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arneson) | Defendant's Argument (Wolf) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTKL and its statutory scheme demonstrate legislative intent to limit the Governor’s power to remove the OOR Executive Director without cause | The RTKL creates a six-year term and reflects intent to insulate the Executive Director from at-will removal, so removal is only for cause | The Governor has constitutional removal power over appointed civil officers under Art. VI, §7 and may remove the Executive Director at will absent explicit statutory for-cause language | Court held the RTKL’s text, purpose, and the OOR’s unique, independent role show legislative intent to limit removal; the Executive Director is not removable at-will |
| Whether the OOR’s sui generis, independent status affects the removal-power analysis | The OOR’s unique role applying RTKL standards to all branches—including executive—requires insulation from political pressure, supporting a for-cause tenure | The Governor’s removal power controls unless the legislature clearly and expressly strips it; OOR’s uniqueness does not override constitutional removal scheme | Court emphasized the OOR’s uniqueness and narrowed its holding to the OOR and its Executive Director, concluding insulation from at-will removal is appropriate to effectuate RTKL objectives |
Key Cases Cited
- Arneson v. Wolf, 117 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Commonwealth Court decision interpreting RTKL and holding Executive Director protected from at-will removal)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Sortino v. Singley, 392 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1978) (legislative intent in statute creating office controls removal power)
- Watson v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 125 A.2d 354 (Pa. 1956) (when legislature creates an office it may impose tenure and removal conditions)
- Burger v. School Board of McGuffey School District, 923 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 2007) (recognizing legislative authority to impose limits on removal for legislatively created offices)