*1 The order of the Superior Court reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for entry judgment consistent this opinion. relinquished. with Jurisdiction is CASTILLE, SAYLOR, Chief Justice CAPPY and Justices EAKIN, join BAER and the opinion. FITZGERALD
934A.2d 1227 ZAGER, Appellee, Matthew SCHOOL, Appellant. CHESTER COMMUNITY CHARTER Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of Argued May Decided Nov. *2 Michael Dignazio, P. Esq., County Delaware Solicitor’s Of- fice, Media, for Charter School.
Henry Petrikin, Fintan McHugh, Wellman, Esq., Damico, Petrosa, Media, Brown & Zager. Matthew Teri L. Henning, Esq., amicus Pennsylvania curiae Newspaper Association. CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE,
BEFORE: SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, FITZGERALD, BALDWIN and JJ.
OPINION Justice BALDWIN.
Facts and Procedural History Appellant, (“the Chester Community Charter School school”), was created pursuant Law, to the Charter School § P.S. 17-1701-A et. The seq. school is currently managed by Inc., Charter School Management, which provides manage- ment services to the pursuant school to a agreement. written A corporation Choice, known as Charter Inc. managed prior July, 2002. Appellee, Zager (Zager), Matthew is a resident Pennsylvania. April
On pursuant to the Right-to-Know Act (“Act”), § 65 P.S. 66.1 et. seq., Zager sent a letter to Vahan Gureghian, the Chief Executive Officer of Charter School Inc., Management, requesting independent Auditor’s re- port and financial statements for Chester Community Charter for the fiscal year ending June 2003. Zager additionally requested information regarding the management arrangement between Chester Community Charter School and Choice, Charter Inc. A copy the letter was sent to Peter Idstein, an officer of Charter Management, Inc. and school chief administrator. The school failed to respond Zager’s request. 22, 2004, Zager’s attorney sent a letter to Mr. April
On that a non- Gureghian indicating Chester Charter School was Act, RighC-to-Know under the agency Commonwealth 66.3-4(a), § to 65 the school’s failure to pursuant P.S. in a Zager’s timely initial letter manner constituted respond The letter further Zager’s request.1 a deemed denial Zager’s exceptions that it included to the deemed specified denial, 63.3-5(a),2 § to 65 and restated Petition- pursuant P.S. er’s as follows: requests
(1) independent report The Auditor’s and financial state- year
ments for the fiscal ended June 2003 for the School; Community (2) agreement contract or management between Ches- Choice,
ter Charter School and Charter Inc. Zager’s to the deemed denial of excepting requests, requested clearly letter indicated that documents were by records as defined section 66.1 of the Rightr-to- 66.1.3 66.3-4(a). 1. 65 P.S. receipt Upon request of a written a General rule. for access to
record, agency good a non-Commonwealth shall make a faith effort respond if the a to determine record is record and to promptly possible existing as under the at the time circumstances request days but shall not exceed five business from the date request agency written received the non-Commonwealth person designated head or other the rules established the non- agency receiving requests. Commonwealth for such If the non- agency response Commonwealth fails to send the within five business access, days receipt request of the written written be access shall deemed denied. *4 66.3-5(a). P.S. 65 Filing exceptions. request If a written for access is denied or denied, requester may exceptions deemed the file the with the head of agency denying days the within access 15 business mailing agency's response days date of the or within 15 of a deemed grounds exceptions upon requester shall denial. state which the public any asserts that the record is a record and shall address grounds by agency delaying denying request. stated the or the §66.1. P.S. account, Any dealing "Public record." voucher or contract with the receipt by agency acquisition, or disbursement of funds an or its use materials, disposal supplies, equipment or of services or of or other Gureghian, Danielle Execu- By May letter dated counsel for Charter legal tive President and Vice for the records on Management, Zager’s request Inc. denied private Inc. was a grounds Management, that Charter School subject Right-to-Know and therefore not to the company 17-1732A of the Public The letter further noted that Act Right-to-Know did not indicate that School Code schools. to charter applies
Thereafter, filed a Petition for Zager Review with Court Petition, Zager In his County. Pleas of Delaware Common subject to the Right- that charter schools are fact asserted Act, he fell requested that the documents to-Know records and therefore the school was public Act’s definition of the school response, to make them available. required not that the documents were rec- asserted Act, and that the school by ords as defined Act, and therefore not “agency” by not an as defined was subject arguments to the Act. The school made additional even if it to the the docu- was trade secrets and requested by Zager ments would reveal from practices protects business which the Act disclosure. In a the trial comprehensive opinion, well-reasoned require- concluded that the school court was Act and that the documents ments of the constituted records that sub- requested by Zager were minute, property any by agency fixing an order or decision immunities, property rights, privileges, personal or duties or obli- Provided, gations any person group persons: or That the term "public any report, records" shall not mean communication or other institution, publication prog- paper, of which would disclose the investigation agency of an undertaken in the ress or result duties, by agen- performance except reports filed of its official those safety plants; pertaining to and health in industrial it shall not cies material, record, document, exhibit, any pleading, report, include paper, publication of which memorandum or other access to or prohibited, restricted or forbidden statute law or order or decree court, operate impairment prejudice which or of a or would person's reputation personal security, or or would result in any political by the of its subdivisions or loss Commonwealth funds, municipal or State or authorities of Federal commissions any any excepting therefrom however the record of conviction for criminal act. *5 determination, the trial court its ject making disclosure. to is an indepen- Charter Community School noted that Chester government school an essential provides dent public education, such function, and as namely secondary primary the Right-to- that is to organization subject an qualifies as no found merit additionally Act. The trial court Know char- Law exempts that the Charter School school’s assertion Right-to- of the requirements from disclosure ter schools the the court that documents Finally, the concluded records, and public in fact by Zager did constitute requested with provide Zager copies school to accordingly directed the Following a Petition Reconsidera- records. requested the school, supplemental trial filed a the court tion filed are reiterating that charter schools opinion that records and subject to disclosure. by Zager public requested were to the Com- Community appealed Chester for Reconsid- Court from the denial its Petition monwealth affirmed, that reasoning The Court eration. Commonwealth qualified “agency” performing as an essential the school Act function for of the government purposes require- it Act’s disclosure therefore was additionally The court concluded school’s ments. Zager that the not documents were argument time before records was raised for first Court not this Pleas. Because the school did include Common response Zager’s initial on ground for denial in its 19, 2004, the court concluded that the had waived May the documents records qualified the issue whether to address its merits. Char- and declined order of the Court appeals ter Commonwealth the trial court’s determination. affirming
Discussion “agencies” Act to make requires inspection duplication. public records accessible “enlarge § 66.2. The of the statute is purpose and inspection for the examination general public rights Woods, of public records.” v.Wiley *6 (1958). Agencies that are to required disclose their records are defined the Act as follows: office,
“Agency.” Any department, board or commission of the executive branch Commonwealth, any political Commonwealth, subdivision of the the Pennsylvania Turn- Commission, pike the State System Higher Education or any or State municipal authority or similar organization created pursuant to a statute which declares in substance that such organization performs or has for its purpose performance of an essential governmental func- tion.
65 P.S.
66.1.
Charter schools are not specifically listed within the defini-
tion of “agency” as set
in
forth
section 66.1 of the Right-to-
However,
Know Act.
in addition to the entities that are
enumerated,
explicitly
section 66.1
a
provides
catch-all provi-
sion
subjects
which
Act’s
organizations
that are similar to those listed
perform
and which
or have for
their purpose, the performance of an essential governmental
function. Chester Community
asserts,
Charter School
howev-
er, that the catch-all provision refers
to
only
organiza-
those
tions
are similar to state or municipal authorities since
language
section 66.1 lists “state or municipal authori-
ties” immediately preceding the
provision.
catch-all
Contend-
ing that charter schools are not similar to state or municipal
authorities, Chester Community Charter School argues that it
therefore not
to the Right-to-Know Act. The school
additionally relies on our decision in
Mooney Bd.
Trus-
Univ.,
tees
Temple
(1972),
Relying
in Community College Philadelphia
overlooks our decision
*7
of
Brown,
31, 34,
670,
(1996),
544 Pa.
674 A.2d
672
wherein we
an
analyzing
organization qual-
established that when
whether
ifies as an
to the
a
agency pursuant
critical
an “es-
inquiry
organization performs
is whether
sential
function.” In
an
governmental
determining whether
function,
agency
performing
governmental
is
essential
we
performing entity
held in
that the
must be
Community College
either
identified as
an essential service or
statutorily
providing
a
provide
constitutionally
service which is
mandated or indis-
putably necessary
continued existence of the Common-
34,
544 Pa. at
Community College,
wealth.
P.S. 17-1703-A. School within which the 174 contained, is intended to “establish a
Charter School Law education, efficient thorough system public child a Hazleton Area Sch. Dist. v. every right.” Zoning has (2001). Bd., 180, 192, 1205, 566 Pa. A.2d 1213 A Hearing 778 of charter is to purpose “provide parents stated schools in expanded types choices of educational pupils with sys that are available opportunities 17-1702-A(5). § tem.” 24 also Mosaica Academy P.S. See Ed., v. Com. 572 Pa. 813 A.2d Dept, Charter Sch. (2002) (“... 813, in Assembly 822 General was clear school....”); a charter school a defining as West Sch., Collegium Area Sch. Dist. v. Charier Chester (2002) (“A 1172, charter school is under the as an independent, defined [Charter Law] ”). schools, school.... Therefore charter nonprofit, public independent public purpose provid schools created for governmental the essential service of education in a consti ing manner, tutionally necessarily among mandated are included that are Act. agencies next Charter School asserts that require does not charter schools to Charter School Law with the comply
Specifically, the school relies on P.S. 17-1721-A and 17-1716-A(c) of the Charter School support Law 17-1721-A, argument. its school maintains section of the Charter pertaining organization Appeal *8 Board, the in the only provision is Charter School Law that compliance Right-to-Know mandates with the Act. explicitly 17-1716-A(c) section of the comparison, Charter School Trustees, charter school Boards of mandates governing Law the Act. The compliance only with Sunshine school asserts that sections of the be these two Charter School Law must Reading read in materia. the sections the pari together, contends, demonstrates the intent to free Legislature’s responding every charter schools from the burden of to con to pursuant Right-to- ceivable documents the Act, the Act to the school’s by limiting compliance Know with only. Board Appeal requires Law of the Charter School
Although language the to with the comply Board Appeal the Charter School only Act, of the by the terms Right-to-Know of the itself, are sub- general charter schools Act Right-to Know function of of their requirements by to the Act’s virtue ject essential, service of constitutionally the mandated providing specifical- Law not While the Charter School does education. Right-to-Know to the comply charter schools with ly require schools, Act, provid- Act Right-to-Know the includes charter education, require- its organizations bound public ers ments. 21, on June
Additionally, Right-to-Know the enacted Law, 1957, enacted on predates the Charter School was Therefore, 19, at the time may presume we that June enacted, Legislature Law was was the Charter School that fall within the Act’s authori- charter schools would aware reference the specifically declined to ty, consequently For the Act the Charter School Law. Right-to-Know within reason, Legislature may explicitly have declined same “agency” upon charter the definition of include schools within 29, Act on June the amendment of legisla Assembly empowered pass General legislation the terms its as its sees fit. tion define [and] Services, Com., Corp. Dep’t Harrstown Dev. General 1128, (1992). Legislature Pa. While Right-to- compliance have declined to mandate with may Law, Act within Charter School scope itself charter schools its and there Act includes According subjects requirements. fore charter schools to its affirm the of the Commonwealth Court ly, we determination are requested by Appellee the records disclosure.4 additionally Community that the man- 4. Chester asserts Zager not agement and internal are contract audit meaning records to disclosure within the However, include Charter School failed to this questions presented for in its issue in the statement of review Petition Therefore, Appeal. will not Allowance of we address merits Inc., argument. Hospitals, Lewis v. this See United *9 Chief Justice CAPPY and CASTILLE, SAYLOR, Justice BAER and join FITZGERALD the opinion.
Justice EAKIN files a concurring opinion. EAKIN,
Justice concurring. I result, concur in the but affirm would based on the Commonwealth Court’s reasoning that the charter per- forms essential government function. See Chester Com- munity Charter School v. Zager, 895 A.2d unpublished 2006). memorandum at (Pa.Cmwlth., 4-7 I would not reach the issue of the legislature’s intent enacting School Law.
934A.2d 1233 Pennsylvania, Appellant COMMONWEALTH of RATSAMY, Appellee. Robert Supreme Pennsylvania. Court of 25, Submitted June Decided Nov. (1997); 1115(3) ("Only Pa.R.A.P. questions set therein, forth petition, fairly in the comprised ordinarily will be allowed.”). considered the court in the appeal event an