Easton Area School District v. Baxter
35 A.3d 1259
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- RTKL request sought all emails to/from nine school board members and district officials for Oct 1–31, 2010; emails stored on district systems; district denied citing specificity, deliberative process, FERPA, and privacy exemptions.
- OOR found the request specific, required redactions for PII, and ordered disclosure of responsive records subject to FERPA redactions.
- Trial court affirmed OOR, ruling emails are records when they document agency transactions; Silberstein argument not raised by district on appeal.
- Appellant district argued Silberstein governs and emails of individual board members are not public records; district also argued lack of specificity.
- Court held emails that document agency transactions are records even when created by individuals acting in official capacity; Silberstein does not categorically bar superintendent/general board emails from being records; request sufficiently specific; private/FERPA-protected portions may be redacted; reversal in part as to private activities.
- Concurrence notes waiver/waived defenses and would affirm trial court outright, avoiding expansion of private-activities disclosure beyond record evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are emails from district addresses that discuss agency transactions public records under RTKL? | Baxter | Easton Area SD | Yes; records documenting agency transactions are public records. |
| Does Silberstein apply to emails of individual board members to exclude them from public-records status? | Baxter | Easton Area SD | Silberstein not controlling for superintendent/general-board emails; not categorically excluding those emails. |
| Is the request sufficiently specific under Section 703? | Baxter | Easton Area SD | Yes; limited period and defined addresses make it sufficiently specific. |
| Should private activities be redacted under FERPA and privacy exemptions? | Baxter | Easton Area SD | Private activities portion reversed; redaction of PII permissible; FERPA concerns addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (specificity required to avoid undue burden; burden on agency must be defined)
- In re Silberstein, 11 A.3d 629 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (emails of individuals may be records depending on agency action or authorization)
- Wrazien v. Easton Area School District, 926 A.2d 585 (Pa.Cmwlth.2007) (superintendent authority to act on behalf of district can render communications records)
- Bangor Area Education Association v. Angle, 720 A.2d 198 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998) (board actions taken by collective authority; individual emails may relate to agency business)
- Florida v. City of Clearwater, 863 So.2d 149 (Fla.2003) (private documents not public records solely due to agency-owned computer location)
- Griffis v. Pinal County, 215 Ariz. 1 (Ariz. 2007) (records require substantial nexus to government activities)
- Denver Publishing Co. v. Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe, 121 P.3d 190 (Colo. 2005) (possession/creation of emails is not enough; must relate to public function)
- Howell Education Association, MEA/NEA v. Howell Bd. of Education, 287 Mich.App. 228 (Mich.App. 2010) (private emails not public records despite policy)
- Schill v. Wisconsin Rapids School District, 327 Wis.2d 572 (Wis.2000) (contents of personal emails on public systems not automatically public records)