Court ruling broadens open record exemption for courts
BY CHARLES SCHILLINGER
The [Scranton] Times-Tribune
In a precedent-setting ruling handed down Wednesday by Commonwealth Court, records of ancillary offices to the state's court system have been found exempt from the 2009 Right to Know Law.
Addressing whether The Times-Tribune and others were entitled to Lackawanna County records for its Department of Domestic Relations, the court ruled the county and state Office of Open Records were permanently barred from making the information public.
The Times-Tribune had sought "inappropriate e-mails" sent and received by Pat Luongo, director of domestic relations, for which he had been suspended without pay.
The Office of Open Records will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, said executive director Terry Mutchler.
"It is a brand-new law and everybody is in a stage of weighing in. This court weighed in with a very strong opinion related to this and we're welcome for any guidance," she said. "The Office of Open Records still feels that our final determination was correct."
Art Heinz, a spokesman for the Administrative Offices of the Pennsylvania Courts, said "we're pleased" with the ruling. The AOPC represented Lackawanna County Courts in the appeal.
At issue is an exemption in the Right to Know Law for the state's court system, and how broadly that exemption should be interpreted.
The Office of Open Records argued the exemption did not apply to Mr. Luongo, whose role is intertwined between the executive branch and judicial branch.
"The fact that he is supervised by the judicial branch does not make him a part of the judicial agency as opposed to the local agency to which the request was directed. 'Judicial agency' is limited to the unified judicial system, which are the courts," the Office of Open Records ruled Dec. 23.
The Commonwealth Court disagreed.
"(Mr.) Luongo clearly is an employee of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas and, thus, making him an administrative staff employee of the unified judicial system," Judge Dan Pellegrini said in his opinion for the court.
"Neither the General Assembly nor the executive branch of government, acting through an administrative agency, may constitutionally infringe upon the powers or duties of the judiciary," he added. "Among the judiciary's powers is the ability to supervise its own personnel without interference from another branch of government."
Even though open records law might not apply to Mr. Luongo, the public is still entitled to some measure of accountability, said Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"Since the (Right to Know Law) does not apply, the court bears the burden to independently provide accountability for the public servants it employs," she said.
In Commonwealth Court, this is the third reversal of an Office of Open Records determination, while nine of its determinations have been upheld by the court. Recently, the Commonwealth Court ruled in The Times-Tribune's favor in a case in which SWB Yankees refused to release records related to its hiring process for PNC Field's concessionaire.
Given that three-quarters of the cases have been upheld, Ms. Mutchler said she thinks that shows Pennsylvania has a "pro-open government" court.
The [Scranton] Times-Tribune
In a precedent-setting ruling handed down Wednesday by Commonwealth Court, records of ancillary offices to the state's court system have been found exempt from the 2009 Right to Know Law.
Addressing whether The Times-Tribune and others were entitled to Lackawanna County records for its Department of Domestic Relations, the court ruled the county and state Office of Open Records were permanently barred from making the information public.
The Times-Tribune had sought "inappropriate e-mails" sent and received by Pat Luongo, director of domestic relations, for which he had been suspended without pay.
The Office of Open Records will appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, said executive director Terry Mutchler.
"It is a brand-new law and everybody is in a stage of weighing in. This court weighed in with a very strong opinion related to this and we're welcome for any guidance," she said. "The Office of Open Records still feels that our final determination was correct."
Art Heinz, a spokesman for the Administrative Offices of the Pennsylvania Courts, said "we're pleased" with the ruling. The AOPC represented Lackawanna County Courts in the appeal.
At issue is an exemption in the Right to Know Law for the state's court system, and how broadly that exemption should be interpreted.
The Office of Open Records argued the exemption did not apply to Mr. Luongo, whose role is intertwined between the executive branch and judicial branch.
"The fact that he is supervised by the judicial branch does not make him a part of the judicial agency as opposed to the local agency to which the request was directed. 'Judicial agency' is limited to the unified judicial system, which are the courts," the Office of Open Records ruled Dec. 23.
The Commonwealth Court disagreed.
"(Mr.) Luongo clearly is an employee of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas and, thus, making him an administrative staff employee of the unified judicial system," Judge Dan Pellegrini said in his opinion for the court.
"Neither the General Assembly nor the executive branch of government, acting through an administrative agency, may constitutionally infringe upon the powers or duties of the judiciary," he added. "Among the judiciary's powers is the ability to supervise its own personnel without interference from another branch of government."
Even though open records law might not apply to Mr. Luongo, the public is still entitled to some measure of accountability, said Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"Since the (Right to Know Law) does not apply, the court bears the burden to independently provide accountability for the public servants it employs," she said.
In Commonwealth Court, this is the third reversal of an Office of Open Records determination, while nine of its determinations have been upheld by the court. Recently, the Commonwealth Court ruled in The Times-Tribune's favor in a case in which SWB Yankees refused to release records related to its hiring process for PNC Field's concessionaire.
Given that three-quarters of the cases have been upheld, Ms. Mutchler said she thinks that shows Pennsylvania has a "pro-open government" court.
