Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy ex rel. Philadelphia Newspaper, LLC
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 77
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Charter School appeals a trial court order requiring production of salary and contract records requested by a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter.
- OOR had determined the records, though held by a private contractor (Management), were public records related to Charter School’s governmental function.
- Management operates the Charter School under a Management Agreement; all personnel are employees of Management and it directs educational services.
- The request was made January 30, 2009; March 9, 2009 Charter School denied the request as part of discovery and public-records arguments.
- OOR issued a final determination May 8, 2009 directing disclosure; Charter School appeal led to trial court rulings and this appeal.
- Charter School raises four issues: deemed denial for late final determination, ex parte extension, whether records are public, and bankruptcy stay applicability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal was deemed denied | Charter School argues final determination was late; denial should be deemed under §1101(b)(2). | Requester could extend deadline; ex parte context did not invalidate extension; de novo review cures defects. | Not deemed denied; extension timely and cured by de novo review. |
| Effect of ex parte communication on due process | Ex parte communication tainted the second extension and violated due process. | No due process violation; OOR proceedings focus on requester rights; Charter School not prejudiced. | Ex parte taint cured by de novo trial review; no due process violation. |
| Public-record status of Management records | Management records are private business records; not public records. | Records relate to governmental function; third-party records under §506(d)(1) are public. | Records are public; Charter School waived grounds and, in any case, relate to governmental function. |
| Bankruptcy stay relevance to Right-to-Know action | Bankruptcy stay bars the Right-to-Know proceeding. | Bankruptcy stay does not bar this Right-to-Know action; statute prohibits denial based on intended use. | Bankruptcy stay did not bar the Right-to-Know proceeding; stay irrelevant to access rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (emphasizes expeditious resolution and de novo-like fact-finding in review)
- Signature Information Solutions, LLC v. Aston Township, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (limits grounds for denial to those stated in agency response)
- East Stroudsburg Univ. Foundation v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (records related to governmental function; private fundraising not exempt)
- SWB Yankees, LLC v. Gretchen Wintermantel, 999 A.2d 672 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (puts third party in agency position for purposes of Right-to-Know Law)
- Department of Transportation v. Office of Open Records, 7 A.3d 329 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (reiterates de novo-style review framework and standards)