City of Harrisburg v. J. Prince, Esq.
186 A.3d 544
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- In Feb 2015 Joshua Prince requested records under the RTKL about two lawsuits versus the City of Harrisburg, including donor names, addresses, check numbers and amounts for a “Protect Harrisburg Legal Defense Fund” (Spreadsheet).
- The City produced donation amounts but redacted donor names, addresses, check numbers and phones, citing the donor-exception (65 P.S. §67.708(b)(13)) and privileges; it identified the Fund as a Police Protection Special Revenue Fund subaccount and said donations are deposited to the City Treasurer.
- OOR ordered disclosure of the unredacted donor list, finding the City had not submitted a sworn affidavit to prove the exemption; OOR also found the City produced all other responsive records.
- The City appealed to common pleas; it supplemented the record with a sworn affidavit from the City Solicitor explaining the Fund’s purpose and that donations do not confer personal benefit to officials; the trial court reversed OOR on the donor disclosure but affirmed that no other responsive records existed.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court: it held donor identities in the Spreadsheet are exempt under the donor exception (and even if the Spreadsheet were a “financial record,” personal financial information could be redacted), and accepted the City’s attestations that no other responsive records existed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether donor names/addresses in the Spreadsheet are "financial records" subject to RTKL §708(c) disclosure | Prince: Spreadsheet is an account/voucher—a financial record—so §708(c) lifts the donor-exception and requires disclosure | City: Donor data is exempt under §708(b)(13); if treated as financial record, redaction authority in §708(c) preserves exemptions | Court: Spreadsheet is not sufficiently connected to City accounts to be a financial record; even if it were, personal financial info may be redacted; donor identities may be withheld |
| Applicability of donor-exception §708(b)(13) | Prince: Exception doesn’t apply to financial records per §708(c) | City: Exception applies; donors lawfully donated and funds were used for City legal defense, not personal benefit | Court: Donor-exception applies to these donor records; redaction permitted under RTKL framework |
| Whether the City produced all responsive records (good-faith search) | Prince: City failed to produce documents (bank/account records, contracts, council minutes, insurer bills) and OOR record was incomplete | City: Records Officer and Solicitor conducted thorough searches and attested (unsworn then sworn) that no other responsive records exist | Court: Accepted City’s sworn attestation as competent evidence; affirmed no other responsive records existed |
| Whether trial court erred by allowing the City to supplement the record with a solicitor affidavit | Prince: Supplementation was untimely and improper | City: Trial courts have broad de novo review power and may expand the record under §1302/§1304 | Court: No abuse of discretion—trial court properly accepted supplemental sworn affidavit and considered it de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Public Welfare v. Eiseman, 125 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2015) (financial-record definition reaches records "dealing with" agency receipts/disbursements and must be broadly construed)
- Department of Conservation & Natural Resources v. Office of Open Records, 1 A.3d 929 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (agencies may redact portions of financial records containing personal financial information)
- Pennsylvania State University v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (term "account" to be broadly construed for public benefit)
- Tribune-Review Publishing Co. v. Department of Community & Economic Development, 859 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2004) (records must bear a sufficient connection to fiscal categories to be financial records)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (trial courts conducting RTKL review may expand the record and make factual findings de novo)