Bagwell v. Pennsylvania Department of Education
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 267
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Requester sought Department of Education records via the Secretary’s ex officio PSU Board membership, tied to the Sandusky scandal timeframe.
- Department partially denied, citing attorney-client privileges, predecisional deliberative, noncriminal investigative, and personal information exemptions, and provided some redacted records.
- OOR dismissed the appeal as PSU records were not subject to RTKL because PSU is not an agency under RTKL.
- Requester argued records were still 'of' the Department since the Secretary acts on behalf of the Department as ex officio PSU Board member.
- Court held OOR erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction and remanded to develop the record on exemptions; Court treated records as 'of' the Department when the Secretary acts to support PSU Board duties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OOR have jurisdiction over PSU records via the Department? | Bagwell: records are Department records via the Secretary's ex officio PSU Board role. | Department: PSU not an RTKL agency; records not 'of' the Department. | Yes; OOR jurisdiction exists because the Secretary acts for the Department on PSU matters. |
| Are the requested records 'records' of the RTKL when received by the Secretary ex officio on PSU Board? | Records are 'of' the Department since the Secretary performs Department duties on PSU’s Board. | PSU records if not created by the Department; thus not RTKL records. | Yes; records received by the Secretary on behalf of the Department qualify as RTKL records. |
| Did the Department's denial comply with RTKL §903 in describing records and exemptions? | Department adequately cited exemptions and described records. | Partial denial insufficient to describe records or exemptions. | Department's denial suffices to put requester on notice of exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- PHEAA, 910 A.2d 177 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006) (agency activities may render records accessible even when board members are not strictly within RTKL agency)
- Bari, 20 A.3d 640 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (capacity in which a board member acts determines whether records are agency records)
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (official capacity governs whether records on personal devices reflect agency activity)
- Parsons/WTAE-TV (ASCI I), 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (records in possession of an agency can be 'records' even if not created by the agency)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (RTKL review is independent and allowed to substitute findings of fact)
- Derry Twp. Sch. Dist. v. Pa. State Univ., 557 Pa. 91 (1999) (state-related status and governance influence RTKL applicability)