The Municipality of Mt. Lebanon v. E. Gillen and PA Office of Open Records -- Appeal of: E. Gillen
151 A.3d 722
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Mt. Lebanon contracted White Buffalo, Inc. for an organized bow-hunt to reduce deer; private property owners could volunteer as archers or allow use of their land.
- Elaine Gillen requested municipal emails about the archery program (two requests covering different time periods). The Municipality produced many pages but withheld some emails it said identified volunteers/property owners.
- Municipality claimed exemptions under RTKL § 708(b)(1)(ii) (personal security) and § 708(b)(13) (donor identity). OOR ordered disclosure, rejecting the exemptions.
- Trial court reviewed documents in camera, found the personal-security exemption inapplicable but held § 708(b)(13) (the donor exception) applied to volunteers who donated time or temporary use of property.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed: held that unpaid volunteering of services or temporary lending of property to a government agency qualifies as a “donation” under § 708(b)(13), so the donors’ identities are exempt from disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gillen) | Defendant's Argument (Mt. Lebanon) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unpaid volunteer services and temporary use of property are "donations" under RTKL § 708(b)(13) | Volunteers and property-use are not "donations" covered by the donor exception; identities should be disclosed | Volunteering time/services and permitting temporary use of property are contributions/donations and thus protected by § 708(b)(13) | Court held such volunteering and temporary property use are "donations" and donor identities are exempt |
| Whether personal-security exemption § 708(b)(1)(ii) barred disclosure | Argued OOR was wrong to reject personal-security claim | Municipality argued disclosure risked personal security | Trial court (unchallenged on appeal) found Municipality did not show substantial demonstrable risk; personal-security exemption did not apply |
| Whether OOR’s procedural determinations were proper regarding the July 2015 appeal | Gillen challenged OOR’s handling | Municipality argued procedural deficiency barred OOR relief | Trial court found Gillen’s first OOR appeal insufficient; Gillen waived challenge to that ruling on appeal |
| Scope of "donation" — must it be monetary/permanent? | Exception should be narrowly read; not encompass temporary/non-monetary contributions | Statute’s plain meaning and common usage include gratuitous contributions of time or temporary property use | Court applied common meaning: donations include gratuitous gifts, services, loans or supplies; temporary and nonmonetary contributions fall within § 708(b)(13) |
Key Cases Cited
- A Second Chance, Inc. v. Allegheny County Dep’t of Admin. Servs., 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (undefined RTKL terms are construed by common usage)
- St. Ignatius Nursing Home v. Dept. of Public Welfare, 918 A.2d 838 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (use of dictionary/common meaning for undefined statutory terms)
- In re Bruno, 101 A.3d 635 (Pa.) (volunteering time described as a donation of time and talents)
- Fayette Resources, Inc. v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 107 A.3d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (references to gratuitous rendering of services as donation)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. McGill, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL exemptions to be narrowly construed)
- Office of Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL construction principles and purpose)
- Shafer Electric & Construction v. Mantia, 96 A.3d 989 (Pa.) (court may not add restrictions to statute beyond legislative text)
- East Stroudsburg Univ. Foundation v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (donor exception applied previously to financial donations)
- Indiana Univ. of Pa. v. Loomis, 23 A.3d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (donor exception discussed in context of monetary donations)