219 A.3d 602
Pa.2019Background
- In Feb. 2015 Joshua Prince filed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request for records about the Protect Harrisburg Legal Defense Fund, including a City spreadsheet listing donors, amounts, dates, and identifying info.
- The City produced a redacted donor spreadsheet (amounts/dates disclosed; names, addresses, check numbers, phones redacted) citing the donor-exception in 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(13).
- The Office of Open Records (OOR) ordered production of the unredacted spreadsheet because the City initially failed to meet its burden to show the exemption applied; the trial court reversed after the City submitted an affidavit; the Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, holding the spreadsheet was not a "financial record."
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the donor spreadsheet qualifies as a "financial record" under RTKL § 67.102 and thus falls outside the donor-exception of § 67.708(b)(13).
- The Supreme Court held the spreadsheet is a financial record (an "account"/list of receipts bearing a sufficient connection to the City account), so the statutory donor-exception does not apply to it, but remanded for application of the constitutional privacy balancing test from PSEA II and for third-party notice to donors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prince) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the donor spreadsheet is a "financial record" under RTKL § 67.102 | Spreadsheet is an "account" / list of monetary receipts and is sufficiently connected to the City's Fund/account, so it meets the statutory definition | Spreadsheet is an internal log/collation, not an "account," voucher, or bank account record; treating it as financial would nullify the donor-exception | The Court held the spreadsheet is a financial record (list/enumeration of donations connected to City account); § 67.708(c) makes the donor-exception inapplicable to financial records |
| Whether donor names/addresses must be disclosed despite statutory status, and what procedure applies | Public interest in knowing who funds government action outweighs privacy; donors submitted themselves to a public forum by sending checks | Donors have constitutionally protected privacy interests that may outweigh public interest; City urged redaction and reliance on PSEA II balancing | The Court remanded for the PSEA II constitutional privacy balancing test and required that donors receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Public Welfare v. Eiseman, 125 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2015) (financial-record analysis: records bearing a "sufficient connection" to accounts/vouchers/contracts can be financial records)
- Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass’n v. Commonwealth, Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (PSEA II) (establishes Article I, § 1 privacy balancing test for disclosure of certain personal information)
- Tribune-Review Pub. Co. v. Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 859 A.2d 1261 (Pa. 2004) (refused disclosure of an agency "log" that did not sufficiently memorialize funding or bear a close connection to an account)
- LaValle v. Office of Gen. Counsel, 769 A.2d 449 (Pa. 2001) (RTKA/RTKL category can include records beyond facial accounts but must bear a close connection to fiscal categories)
- Pennsylvania State Univ. v. State Emp’rs’ Ret. Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) ("account" can include lists/enumerations of financial transactions and must be construed broadly)
- North Hills News Record v. Town of McCandless, 722 A.2d 1037 (Pa. 1998) (accounts/vouchers/contracts category may reach beyond facial examples but requires sufficient connection)
- Sapp Roofing Co., Inc. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 713 A.2d 627 (Pa. 1998) (payroll records evidencing disbursements by an agency can be public records)