173 A.3d 1143
Pa.2017Background
- Section 614 of the Administrative Code requires state agencies to transmit an annual employee list (name, position, DOB, county and voting residence, salary, hire date, service history) to certain State Officers and declares that information "shall be public information" (except voting residence after 2002 amendment).
- PFUR demanded the List in manipulable form and insisted only voting residence may be redacted; Treasurer treated the demand as a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request and sought to apply RTKL exemptions.
- Commonwealth Court held Regulation 7.201 (1976) still provided access at the State Library without written request and that RTKL exemptions could not redact the List; Treasurer appealed.
- This Court concluded Regulation 7.201 lost force after repeal of its statutory authorizations and that access to the List is governed by the RTKL access provisions (written requester-based process).
- The Court held, however, that the RTKL's statutory exemptions in § 67.708 cannot be used to convert information that the General Assembly designated "public information" under § 614 into nonpublic information; but the Treasurer must apply the constitutional PSEA balancing test (informational privacy) before disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Regulation 7.201 still authorizes access to the List outside the RTKL process | PFUR: Reg.7.201 remains effective and entitles public to inspect/copy the List at State Library without RTKL limits | Treasurer/GOA: Reg.7.201 lost statutory authority after repeal of the RTKA access provision and is inconsistent with RTKL | Regulation 7.201 no longer has continuing statutory authority; RTKL access provisions govern access |
| Whether RTKL exemptions (§67.708) permit redactions from List data that §614 declares "public information" | PFUR: §614 designation means no RTKL exemption can limit access; List must be produced unredacted (except voting residence) | Treasurer/GOA: RTKL exemptions should apply to protect sensitive personal data; RTKL and §614 read in pari materia | RTKL exemptions may not be used to convert §614 public information into nonpublic information; §614's public-character prevails over §67.708 redactions |
| Whether constitutional informational-privacy requires redaction despite §614's public characterization | PFUR: public interest in transparency outweighs employee privacy; PSEA inapplicable | Treasurer/GOA/Unions: PSEA requires a balancing test before release of personal information | Even though §67.708 statutory redaction cannot be invoked to override §614, the Treasurer must perform the PSEA constitutional balancing test before disclosure and may withhold/redact as required by that test |
| Proper framework for access & remedies (procedural question) | PFUR: Section 614 alone governs access; RTKL procedural requirements and written-request framework inapplicable | Treasurer: RTKL provides the access mechanism and remedies; written requests and administrative process apply | Access is governed by RTKL procedures (requester-based, written request for remedies), subject to §614's substantive public-character and constitutional balancing requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Educ. Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Dep't of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 637 Pa. 337, 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016) (requires constitutional balancing test for disclosure of personal information)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 621 Pa. 133, 76 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review and RTKL access framework)
- Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) (distinguishes statutes that declare a record public from statutes that govern access)
- Governor's Office of Administration v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (addresses disclosure of birth month/day and personal security under RTKL)
- Wiley v. Woods, 393 Pa. 341, 141 A.2d 844 (Pa. 1958) (historical recognition of common-law right to inspect public records)