Department of Public Welfare v. Chawaga
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 271
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- DPW’s final RTKL determination (Aug. 5, 2013) partially granted/denied Chawaga’s request for DPW’s NCCF performance audit report.
- Chawaga filed April 26, 2013 RTKL request seeking the final performance audit report.
- DPW denied June 3, 2013 portions under RTKL sections 708(b)(17) (noncriminal investigation) and 708(b)(10)(i)(A) (internal predecisional deliberations).
- OOR, on August 5, 2013, granted in part and denied in part, ordering DPW to provide the report within 30 days.
- DPW appealed to the Commonwealth Court; standard of review is de novo with plenary scope; court affirms the OOR decision.
- Court analyzes whether the report is exempt under RTKL exemptions and whether public policy favors disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the report is exempt under the noncriminal investigation exemption | Chawaga argues exemption applies to investigation materials | DPW contends exemption covers the report | Exemption 708(b)(17) does not apply |
| Whether the report is an official probe under 708(b)(17) | N/A (Chawaga's position implied) | DPW asserts it is an official probe | Not an official probe; exemption not triggered |
| Whether the report is exempt under internal predecisional deliberations 708(b)(10)(i)(A) | N/A | Report reflects predecisional deliberations | Exemption does not apply |
| Whether the RTKL permits disclosure of the performance audit report despite work papers exemption in 708(b)(17)(v) | RAISES exemption for work papers to shield audit | Only work papers are exempt; audit itself may be disclosed | Report not exempt; work papers exemption does not bar disclosure |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Health v. Office of Open Records, 4 A.3d 803 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (defines investigation as a systematic inquiry; supports public policy for transparency)
- Carey v. Department of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013) (predecisional deliberations require internality and priorto decision context)
- Governor’s Office of Administration v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (statutory inclusion of items presumes exclusion of others in same class)
- Johnson v. Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, 49 A.3d 920 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (defines ‘official probe’ in context of investigation powers of agency)