Attorney: Sewer bill secrets ‘alarming’
By Courtney L. Anderson
The [Sharon] Herald Staff Writer
SHARON —The legal fight put up by the Sharon Sanitary Authority to keep a Herald reporter from reviewing delinquent sewer accounts is “alarming and unreasonable,” Herald attorney William G. McConnell said in a document recently filed in Mercer County Common Pleas Court.
McConnell filed an answer to authority solicitor William J. Madden’s memorandum of law in the case, which was heard Oct. 8 by Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher J. St. John.
At that hearing, Authority Manager Guy Cunningham said there is $980,000 in outstanding debt due to the authority and city of Sharon.
“In light of the significant delinquency rate … (and) the fact that the cost of the delinquencies are being absorbed by paying customers, the public has a fundamental right under the RTKL to scrutinize the operations of both the city of Sharon and Sharon Sanitary Authority,” McConnell writes, referring to the Right-to-Know Law.
He goes on to say that the authority’s denial and ongoing legal battle expends public resources to oppose the request.
The Herald in June asked to review delinquent accounts and the reporter told the judge she might write an article about debtors who owe large amounts, depending what is found in the records.
The case made it before St. John after the authority denied The Herald’s June request to inspect the account records, claiming that doing so would violate the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.
McConnell, in court filings, said this claim is “misguided and based on a clearly erroneous interpretation and application of the state and federal debt collection statutes.”
The Herald appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, which ruled that the records are public and that the authority should provide the information to The Herald.
At that point, the authority appealed to Mercer County court. The next step is for St. John to rule on the case.
McConnell in his legal analysis, contends that the Right-to-Know Law “was designed to permit the scrutiny of the acts of public officials and to make them accountable for their use of public funds.”
He also noted that the law prohibits an agency from considering the intended use of the public record to deny a requester access. The fact that the person asking to review the records is a reporter is “irrelevant,” McConnell claims.
Last week, Madden filed a document with the court restating the authority’s position against releasing the information to anyone who is not a “permissible contact” under the act.
A creditor may only communicate with a consumer, the consumer’s attorney, a consumer reporting agency or a debt collector under that law, Madden states, and he contends that the authority meets the definition of “creditor.”
Madden asserts that the federal law supersedes the state Right-to-Know law and that the reporter, who is a Sharon resident, is “clearly a person outside the scope” of the law’s confidentiality clause.
Violating the law could mean fines of up to $5,000 per incident, Madden said, and if the legislature wanted to make consumer debt to a public body exempt from confidentiality requirements of the law, they should amend the definition of “creditor.”
McConnell says the law applies to creditors “in connection with the collection of a debt” and that the inspection of the records by the public or a reporter could not reasonably be considered an attempt to collect debt by the authority.
In fact, McConnell asserts, “the authority’s position would have the absurd result of prohibiting the public from being able to inspect and scrutinize the delinquent accounts of any public agency.”
“The financial records of public agencies … have almost without exception been held to be public records subject to disclosure,” McConnell writes.
He mentions seven different preceding court rulings in his memorandum and notes that Madden does not cite any case law to support his argument.
In recent months, the authority has filed civil lawsuits against several landlords who owe more than $10,000 total in back bills. The authority also has filed municipal liens against a number of properties for failure to pay sewer fees.
Those filings are public record.
The [Sharon] Herald Staff Writer
SHARON —The legal fight put up by the Sharon Sanitary Authority to keep a Herald reporter from reviewing delinquent sewer accounts is “alarming and unreasonable,” Herald attorney William G. McConnell said in a document recently filed in Mercer County Common Pleas Court.
McConnell filed an answer to authority solicitor William J. Madden’s memorandum of law in the case, which was heard Oct. 8 by Common Pleas Court Judge Christopher J. St. John.
At that hearing, Authority Manager Guy Cunningham said there is $980,000 in outstanding debt due to the authority and city of Sharon.
“In light of the significant delinquency rate … (and) the fact that the cost of the delinquencies are being absorbed by paying customers, the public has a fundamental right under the RTKL to scrutinize the operations of both the city of Sharon and Sharon Sanitary Authority,” McConnell writes, referring to the Right-to-Know Law.
He goes on to say that the authority’s denial and ongoing legal battle expends public resources to oppose the request.
The Herald in June asked to review delinquent accounts and the reporter told the judge she might write an article about debtors who owe large amounts, depending what is found in the records.
The case made it before St. John after the authority denied The Herald’s June request to inspect the account records, claiming that doing so would violate the Fair Credit Extension Uniformity Act.
McConnell, in court filings, said this claim is “misguided and based on a clearly erroneous interpretation and application of the state and federal debt collection statutes.”
The Herald appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, which ruled that the records are public and that the authority should provide the information to The Herald.
At that point, the authority appealed to Mercer County court. The next step is for St. John to rule on the case.
McConnell in his legal analysis, contends that the Right-to-Know Law “was designed to permit the scrutiny of the acts of public officials and to make them accountable for their use of public funds.”
He also noted that the law prohibits an agency from considering the intended use of the public record to deny a requester access. The fact that the person asking to review the records is a reporter is “irrelevant,” McConnell claims.
Last week, Madden filed a document with the court restating the authority’s position against releasing the information to anyone who is not a “permissible contact” under the act.
A creditor may only communicate with a consumer, the consumer’s attorney, a consumer reporting agency or a debt collector under that law, Madden states, and he contends that the authority meets the definition of “creditor.”
Madden asserts that the federal law supersedes the state Right-to-Know law and that the reporter, who is a Sharon resident, is “clearly a person outside the scope” of the law’s confidentiality clause.
Violating the law could mean fines of up to $5,000 per incident, Madden said, and if the legislature wanted to make consumer debt to a public body exempt from confidentiality requirements of the law, they should amend the definition of “creditor.”
McConnell says the law applies to creditors “in connection with the collection of a debt” and that the inspection of the records by the public or a reporter could not reasonably be considered an attempt to collect debt by the authority.
In fact, McConnell asserts, “the authority’s position would have the absurd result of prohibiting the public from being able to inspect and scrutinize the delinquent accounts of any public agency.”
“The financial records of public agencies … have almost without exception been held to be public records subject to disclosure,” McConnell writes.
He mentions seven different preceding court rulings in his memorandum and notes that Madden does not cite any case law to support his argument.
In recent months, the authority has filed civil lawsuits against several landlords who owe more than $10,000 total in back bills. The authority also has filed municipal liens against a number of properties for failure to pay sewer fees.
Those filings are public record.
