City of Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Inquirer
52 A.3d 456
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- The Inquirer sought Mayor’s daily schedule and 17 City Council members’ daily schedules under the RTKL, including calendars and appointment logs showing city business and public appearances.
- City denied, citing the RTKL exemptions for working papers, predecisional deliberations/strategy, personal security, and law enforcement/public safety activity.
- OOR partly granted, finding calendars not working papers, and the City failed to prove exemptions for City Council calendars or predecisional deliberations.
- Trial court ordered broader affidavits; after review, it held the Mayor’s and Council calendars exempt as working papers under RTKL § 708(b)(12), citing Bureau of National Affairs reasoning.
- Inquirer appealed; the court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s application of the working papers exemption; Judge McCullough dissented.
- Dissent argued calendars are not exempt and urged narrow RTKL construction; dissent noted Mayor’s calendar use extends to security and questioned reliance on Bureau of National Affairs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calendars are exempt under RTKL §708(b)(12) | Inquirer argues calendars are not 'notes and working papers' for personal use. | City contends calendars are personal-use working papers created for officials’ own scheduling. | Yes; calendars qualify as notes/working papers exempt from disclosure. |
| Whether predecisional deliberations/strategy or personal security exemptions apply | Inquirer asserts no predecisional or security exemption applies to past schedules. | City maintains exemptions apply due to internal deliberations and security risks. | Exemptions acknowledged; however the court relied on working papers to resolve disclosure. |
| Standard of proof and evidentiary sufficiency for exemptions | Inquirer contends insufficient evidence supports exemptions. | City supplied multiple affidavits from officials supporting exemptions. | Record supports application of working papers exemption to the calendars. |
| Whether the trial court properly relied on Bureau of National Affairs reasoning | Inquirer opposes federal FOIA-based reasoning to determine RTKL exemptions. | City cites BNA to distinguish calendars as personal-use working papers. | Court adopted the trial court’s reasoning, aligning with BNA to classify calendars as personal-use working papers. |
| Disposition of Council member Brian O’Neill’s calendar | Inquirer seeks all calendars, including O’Neill’s. | City asserts O’Neill’s calendar is personal and not broadly shared. | O’Neill’s calendar exempt; others exempt with narrow readings of the RTKL working papers exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bureau of Nat’l Affairs, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 742 F.2d 1484 (D.C.Cir.1984) (FOIA predecisional/working papers comparison for calendars)
- Easton Area School District v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (definition of 'personal' within working papers)
- Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy, 38 A.3d 1079 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (standard of RTKL review; substantial evidence)