Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board v. Office of Open Records
48 A.3d 503
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Schneller, a member of Eastern Pennsylvania Citizens Against Gambling, sought records from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (Gaming Board) for communications with Category 3 license applicants and related financial data, and asked to speak at the next public hearing.
- Schneller sent his request by email to the Gaming Board's Communications Office; the Board did not forward it to the Open Records Officer, nor respond within five days, leading Schneller to deem a denial and appeal to Open Records.
- Open Records held that Schneller’s request was governed by the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) despite not citing it or using the Board’s RTKL form; the Board’s policy required forwarding to the Open Records Officer and its own formatting rules.
- The Board argued Schneller failed to present a proper RTKL request, but Open Records concluded that a written request is sufficient even if it does not comply with agency policy or cite RTKL, and that the five-day response deadline triggers remedies if denied or deemed denied.
- The court held that Schneller’s request should have been treated as a RTKL request because a ‘record’ includes information created in connection with the Board’s licensing activities, and the Board’s failure to respond constituted a deemed denial, enabling RTKL remedies.
- On the second issue, the Court vacated the Open Records order to disclose, remanding for consideration of whether disclosed records are exempt under RTKL or other laws, including the Gaming Act’s confidentiality provisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schneller’s request qualifies as a RTKL request | Schneller argument: RTKL applies since request seeks public records. | Gaming Board: request not RTKL-compliant due to lack of RTKL citation and form. | Yes; request treated as RTKL and deemed denied, triggering remedies. |
| Whether a lack of RTKL citation or form forecloses agency response | RTKL governs written requests regardless of form/citation. | Agency policy and form requirements control validity. | RTKL remedies apply; form/citation defects do not bar processing. |
| Whether records must be disclosed or may be exempt under RTKL | Records should be disclosed absent valid exemptions. | Records may be exempt under RTKL or other laws (e.g., Gaming Act). | Remand to determine exemptions; some records may be confidential under Gaming Act. |
| Whether the Board could waive applicants’ confidentiality interests | Open Records can require disclosure subject to RTKL exemptions. | Applicants’ confidentiality interests under Gaming Act and other laws restrict disclosure. | The Board lacks authority to waive confidential information; remand to assess exemptions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (standard for reviewing Open Records decisions; de novo review)
- Koken v. Reliance Insurance Company, 586 Pa. 269 (2006) (plain-language controls statutory interpretation; avoid absurd results)
- East Stroudsburg University Foundation v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (Open Records lacks standing to defend its decision; not aggrieved)
- Pennsylvania State Education Association v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 4 A.3d 1156 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (Open Records acts as disinterested quasi-judicial tribunal)
- 65 P.S. § 67.703 excerpt, N/A (N/A) (RTKL written request requirements; forwarding to open-records officer)