*1 No. the existence of Law 16. Given Concl. OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY DEP for application with Developer’s PENNSYLVANIA, new, sewage system, off-site Petitioner its resolu- regarding
lack documentation tion, repair to issue a the SEO’s reluctance v. was reason- property for the same permit able. LOOMIS, Respondent. David say Developer is not to This Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court off- plan chained to initial for an forever its system. Developer sewage site 9, Argued May 2011. 1) withdrawal of must: document formal Decided June con- approved sewage module planning 2) ap- taining system; the off-site obtain of a revised land devel-
proval preliminary a) showing
opment plan Regency Plaza b) Donuts, now-existing the on- Dunkin system sewage proposes repair, it
site c) 3) parking; sufficient come Supervisors regarding
terms with the Agreement.
future no
Based on we discern foregoing, de- Supervisors’
abuse of discretion in the Developer’s
nial of of the SEO’s to issue the sewage repair permit.
refusal
Accordingly, we the trial court’s reverse Supervisors’
order and reinstate the deci-
sion.
ORDER NOW, June, 2011,
AND this day 15th
the order of the Pleas of Court Common County is de-
Monroe REVERSED. The Township Board
cision Chestnuthill Supervisors December 2009 is dated
REINSTATED.
H27
Harrisburg,
S.
for
of
Ferguson,
meetings
Michael
d.Minutes
of the [Founda-
of
they
petitioner.
tion] Board Directors as
relate
and
raising
disbursing money during
Philadelphia,
Sproul,
for
Gayle Chatilo
period
(July
through
the same
respondent.
2010).
30,
June
McGINLEY,
and
Judge,
BEFORE:
(R.R.)
1.)
(Reproduced Record
at
Uni-
PELLEGRINI, Judge, and
versity
the requested
obtained
records
McCullough,
Judge.
from the Foundation but certain informa-
specifically
signatures
tion was
redacted:
BY Judge PELLEGRINI.
OPINION
security
under the
Sec-
personal
exception,
Pennsylvania
Indiana
of
708(b)(l)(ii)
Law,
tion
65 P.S.
(University) appeals from
final deter-
the
67.708(b)(l)(ii),
§
prevent
photo-shop-
of the Office
Records
Open
mination
directly
ping signatures; material not
re-
(OOR)
denying in
granting
part
lated to the function the Foundation was
(Requester) appeal
David Loomis’
part
contract;
under
performing
discussions
concerning
University’s
the
redaction
predecisional
that constituted
deliberations
information from
he
certain
records
708(b)(10)(i)(A)
Law,
under Section
follow,
For the
requested.
reasons that
67.708(b)(10)(i)(A),
§
65 P.S.
and were re-
we reverse.
proceeding
lated to
with a
Re-
Residential
housing project
vival
under Section
journalism
is a
at
professor
708(b)(22)
Law,
the
65 P.S.
University.
Right-to-
He
the
submitted a
67.708(b)(22),
and donor identities from
(Law) request seeking
Law1
to have
Know
708(b)(13)
minutes under Section
the
following
obtain the
the
67.708(b)(13). (R.R.
Law,
at
65 P.S.
3-
of the Foundation for
4.)
(Foun-
pertinent
Most
to this
appeal,
Pennsylvania
Indiana
requested
dation):
University also
a check for $118
for
due and
copy
payable upon receipt
fees
including pay-
of pledges,
a. Amounts
of the documents.2
dates,
balances,
outstanding
ment
transactions,
record of
fund transfers
nor
neither
to dona-
correspondence
related
picked up the documents but instead filed
tions, for the Kovalchick
Convention
arguing
with
that
1,
Complex
period July
Athletic
for the
the University
information
redacted
2003,
30,
through June
under East Stroudsburg
it
The same information as
relates
b.
v.
ment is copying required failure to before the to his University, appellant was the costs, should have denied his OOR, the OOR duty had no so the not, the final deter- appeal. Because it did anything. Heim v. Medical Care raise the OOR is reversed. Error mination of Reduction Availability findings. Bowling v. independently own factual reviews appeal, 3. On this Court Office of Records, (Pa.Cmwlth. Open A.2d may own substitute its orders of the OOR 2010), appeal grant- petition allowance agency. We findings fact for that of the -Pa.-, (2011). ed, A.3d 427 and make our accept additional evidence can
H29
(3)A
ORDER
request
for a
pos-
record in
of a party
session
other than the agency
NOW,
June, 2011,
day
AND
this 24th
open
shall be submitted to the
the order of the
agency.
officer of the
Upon a determi-
2010-0686,
August
No. AP
dated
nation that the record
subject
to ac-
is reversed.
act,
cess under this
the open records
officer shall
duplication
assess the
fee
Judge
CONCURRING OPINION BY
McCullough.
1307(b)
established under section
upon collection
remit
shall
the fee to the
I
by
concur
the result reached
*4
party
possession
in
of
record if the
Majority.
I
separately
write
to further
party duplicated the record.
involving
address
situation
records in
67.506(d)(l)-(3).
§
65 P.S.
In East
possession
party
of a third
with whom an
Stroudsburg University v.
agency
perform
has contracted to
a gov-
(Pa.Cmwlth.2010),
1307(b) fees agency an to establish permits identities, these being redacted from alia, for, by photocopy- duplication inter fee; 67.1307(b), pay and section did not P.S. records. ing, 65 1307(h) agency to with instead, an specifically permits requester filed an estimate requester prepay a Based require challenging the redactions. $100.00,and exceed any expected statutory provi- and the these facts on until such to records to withhold access above, properly Majority sions cited 67.1307(h). P.S. paid, fees are Requester’s failure concludes that the rec- access to precluded his case, the Foundation present In the ords, should have that his to OOR copies with provided denied, erred in di- and that OOR been response of information pages the rec- University to disclose recting the request. Requester’s ords.2 that it was notified thereafter records and requested receipt 1307(h)
that, with section accordance *5 RTKL, due a fee of $118.00 him grant it would payable before records. The
access to these infor- Requester that certain
also notified
mation, internal de- including signatures, interesting question would arise as sought in this An We if the records note that records, had propriety an if the original had been case inspect the redacted inspect permitted right under sec- would have had a the.RTKL, 701(a) paying the fee. records without the fees set forth tion indicates applica- record before this Court would not be evidence of sections 901 and 1307 ble, permitted regarding Requester was not such the redactions and an therefore, and, reach inspection we need not proper section would have been under RTKL, 67.1101(a). 1101(a) here. P.S. this issue