Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v. Ali
43 A.3d 532
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Ali submitted a March 3, 2011 RTKL request to PHFA for correspondence and proposals regarding Tasker Village mortgage restructuring and Chestnut/56th Street Apartments, as described in PHFA's February 10, 2011 Agenda.
- PHFA denied the request on March 10, 2011 as insufficiently specific under RTKL §703 and noted possible exemptions under RTKL §708(b)(10)(i)(A).
- Ali appealed to the OOR on March 15, 2011 asserting that referencing PHFA's Agenda made the request specific.
- The OOR, on April 12, 2011, partially granted the appeal by requiring PHFA to disclose certain correspondence related to the two projects distributed to the Board for the Agenda, and found some records non-existent or moot.
- PHFA petitioned for judicial review; the Commonwealth Court reviewed de novo and held that the request was insufficiently specific in parts and that the OOR erred in interpreting
- distributed to the Board for the Agenda
- as the face of the request; the court reversed in part and affirmed in part, with the final order reversing the OOR’s grant of Ali’s appeal in part while affirming the rest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ali's RTKL request was sufficiently specific under §703. | Ali argues Agenda reference makes request specific. | PHFA argues scope ambiguous and overbroad. | Yes, insufficiently specific as drafted. |
| Whether the OOR could narrow the scope to “distributed to the Board for the Agenda.” | Ali's interpretation should be upheld given attached Agenda. | OOR cannot narrow the request on appeal. | OOR's narrowing was improper; reversal warranted on this aspect. |
| Whether PHFA satisfied its RTKL burden for predecisional deliberations exemptions. | Records may be exempt under 708(b)(10)(i)(A). | Evidence insufficient to sustain the exemption. | Not reached due to disposition on specificity and scope issues; no ruling on exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (OOR cannot rewrite a request; scope must be defined by requester; but some overbreadth may be narrowed on appeal)