Commonwealth v. Office of Open Records
103 A.3d 1276
| Pa. | 2014Background
- On March 20, 2009 James D. Schneller emailed a press aide at the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board (GCB) requesting various records and copied other GCB officials; he did not address the request to the GCB’s designated open‑records officer.
- The press aide replied with a public comment sign‑up form but did not treat or forward the email as an RTKL request to the open‑records officer.
- Schneller deemed the request denied under 65 P.S. § 67.901 (agency nonresponse within five business days) and appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); the OOR ordered disclosure.
- The Commonwealth Court (en banc, 4–3) affirmed that the email constituted a valid RTKL request and remanded for substantive review. A dissent argued that an RTKL request must be addressed to the open‑records officer.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether a written RTKL request must be addressed to the designated open‑records officer to trigger the RTKL’s five‑day response/deemed‑denial and appeal procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a written request must be addressed to the agency’s open‑records officer to invoke RTKL remedies | OOR/requestor: any written request that is specific and includes name/address should presumptively be an RTKL request; agencies must treat or forward such requests | GCB/General Assembly: requestor must address request to open‑records officer to invoke RTKL; otherwise agency has no RTKL duty and informal responses remain available | Court held requestors must address written RTKL requests to the designated open‑records officer to trigger the five‑day response, deemed‑denial, and OOR appeal rights |
| Whether agency employees must forward any written request they receive to the open‑records officer | OOR/requestor: employees should be directed to forward all written requests; construing statutes functionally avoids technical bar to access | GCB: treating every written request as an RTKL request would impose heavy burdens and disrupt informal constituent services | Court held agencies must direct employees to forward requests, but this duty does not replace the requestor’s obligation to address the request to the open‑records officer; both provisions can be given effect |
| Whether the OOR’s broad construction of Section 703 (treating all written requests as RTKL requests) was permissible | OOR: RTKL remedial purpose supports liberal construction; statutory text read together supports presumption | GCB: plain statutory language requires an address to open‑records officer; OOR reading renders part of the statute surplusage | Court rejected OOR’s construction as giving insufficient effect to the statutory text and adopted the plain‑language rule placing onus on requestor |
Key Cases Cited
- Cozzone ex rel. Cozzone v. W.C.A.B., 73 A.3d 526 (Pa. 2013) (statutory construction principles; plenary review of pure questions of law)
- Commonwealth, Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa.) (discussing agency obligations under RTKL and forwarding of requests)
- Board of Revision of Taxes, City of Philadelphia v. City of Philadelphia, 4 A.3d 610 (Pa. 2010) (read statutory language in context; harmonize provisions)
- Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. Office of Open Records, 48 A.3d 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (commonwealth court en banc decision below addressing whether any written request is an RTKL request)