SWB YANKEES LLC v. Wintermantel
45 A.3d 1029
| Pa. | 2012Background
- Multi-Purpose Stadium Authority of Lackawanna County (the Authority) governs stadium operations and related functions under the Municipality Authorities Act.
- Appellant SWB Yankees LLC, a private manager and equity owner, contracted with the Authority to manage baseball operations and concessions at the Stadium under a replacement management agreement.
- Appellees requested concessionaire bid names and bids under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), arguing records held by Appellant are public records of the Authority.
- The Authority’s open-records officer initially denied disclosure, concluding Appellant was not performing a governmental function for the RTKL purposes.
- Lower courts held that Appellant performed a governmental function and that concession bids were records subject to RTKL disclosure; the Commonwealth Court affirmed, and this Court granted review.
- The issue centers on whether a private contractor performing a governmental function on behalf of a public agency can have its records disclosed under RTKL § 506(d)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does RTKL 506(d)(1) allow disclosure of records in possession of a private contractor performing a governmental function? | SWB Yankees argues governmental function is too broad and should be narrow, distinguishing governmental/proprietary functions. | Wintermantel argues contractor records tied to a delegated governmental function are subject to disclosure under RTKL. | Yes; the Court adopts a broad, non-ancillary, function-based approach permitting disclosure. |
| Are the concessionaire bids 'records' under RTKL 102 and 506(d)(1) when held by a private contractor? | SWB Yankees contends bids were documents of private contract activity, not agency documents. | Wintermantel argues bids relate to the governmental function performed by the contractor and thus are records of the agency. | Yes; written concessionaire bids are 'records' under RTKL 506(d)(1). |
| Should the 'governmental function' standard follow the governmental/proprietary test or a broader 'non-ancillary' approach? | SWB Yankees advocates the traditional governmental/proprietary distinction to limit RTKL reach. | Wintermantel and the majority favor a broad, non-ancillary interpretation to promote openness. | The Court adopts a non-ancillary, broad interpretation of 'governmental function' for RTKL purposes. |
| Does the analysis require bootstrapping the private contractor's records into agency possession for RTKL purposes? | SWB Yankees contends private contractor records should not be recast as agency records merely by contract. | Wintermantel contends that the records are effectively agency records when the contractor performs a delegated governmental function on agency property. | Agency possession and records concept apply; the contractor's documents relating to the governmental function are public records of the agency. |
Key Cases Cited
- East Stroudsburg Univ. Found. v. OOR, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (government contractors' contracts can implicate RTKL open records)
- A Second Chance, Inc. v. Allegheny County Dept. of Admin. Servs., 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (public records scope in third-party contractor context)
- Lukes v. DPW, 976 A.2d 609 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (prior open-records context involving third-party records)
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Westmoreland County Hous. Auth., 574 Pa. 661 (Pa. 2003) (precedent on records produced by entities acting for agencies)
- Bowling v. OOR, 609 Pa. 265 (Pa. 2011) (RTKL policy promoting openness; per curiam decision)