Robert M. McCord, in his official capacity as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of PA v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, and Simon Campbell, President
136 A.3d 1055
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- In Jan 2014 Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PFUR) requested the employee list compiled under Section 614 of the Administrative Code (the "List"). PFUR did not invoke the RTKL in its request.
- The State Treasurer (McCord) responded treating the request under the RTKL and later filed an amended complaint seeking a declaration that the RTKL (and its exemptions) governs requests for the List and injunctive relief against PFUR. PFUR counterclaimed seeking mandamus to obtain the List as prescribed by Section 614.
- The Office of Administration (OA) and several unions intervened or filed briefs; pleadings closed and the Treasurer moved for partial judgment on the pleadings limited to whether the RTKL applies to the List (the "Limited Issue").
- Relevant statutory/regulatory history: older Section 603 and regulatory 4 Pa. Code §7.201 previously made the List available for in-person inspection at the State Library without written request; Section 614 replaced §603 and continued to declare the List public but did not specify access procedures. The RTKL (effective 2009) and later PennWATCH (2011) changed the public-records landscape.
- The Treasurer argued PennWATCH and the RTKL require redaction of List fields exempt under the RTKL; PFUR argued Section 614 and existing regulations provide independent access and the RTKL does not govern PFUR’s request.
- The court treated the Limited Issue as purely legal and, after analyzing statutes, regulations, management directives, and precedent, held the RTKL does not apply to PFUR’s January 2014 request for the List and denied the Treasurer’s motion for partial judgment on that issue; the Treasurer’s injunction claim was dismissed. Factual questions about whether the current electronic List actually complies with Section 614 remain for further litigation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTKL (and its exemptions) applies to PFUR’s Section 614 List request | RTKL governs public records unless another law provides otherwise; PennWATCH and RTKL require redaction of exempt fields | Section 614 and 4 Pa. Code §7.201 independently provide access (State Library inspection) so RTKL does not apply to this request | RTKL does not apply to PFUR’s Jan 2014 request for the List; List should have been accessible at the State Library without RTKL limitations |
| Whether PennWATCH makes the RTKL applicable to the Section 614 List | PennWATCH’s requirement to withhold records exempt under RTKL implies RTKL exemptions should apply to the List | PennWATCH covers only specified data on PennWATCH and does not amend Section 614 to make the List subject to RTKL | PennWATCH does not convert the entire Section 614 List into records governed by the RTKL |
| Whether Governor’s Management Directives can alter accessibility or content of the List under Section 614 | Treasurer: OA/Management Directives can modernize dissemination | PFUR: Directives cannot supersede statute; Management Directives lack force of law when inconsistent with statute | Management Directives cannot change statutory requirements; they are inapplicable to the extent they conflict with Section 614 |
| Whether the Treasurer is entitled to an injunction preventing PFUR from seeking the List outside the RTKL | Injunction needed to prevent interference and to allow RTKL-based redactions | PFUR: injunction unnecessary; legal uncertainty persists | Injunctive relief denied because Treasurer did not show a clear right to relief (first element for injunction not met) |
Key Cases Cited
- McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 100 A.3d 755 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (prior Commonwealth Court order addressing sufficiency of complaint and framing the Limited Issue)
- Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. Office of Open Records, 103 A.3d 1276 (Pa. 2014) (RTKL is not automatically triggered by any written request to any employee; procedures and intent matter)
- Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (statutes other than the RTKL can independently prescribe access rules and preserve their exceptions)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (discussion of RTKL’s procedural reforms and access framework)
- Governor’s Office of Admin. v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (personal security exemption under RTKL exempts months and dates of birth)
- Carey v. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (addresses disclosure limits for law enforcement/corrections employees under RTKL)