Rush Township appeals records ruling
By Tom Ragan
The [Hazleton] Standard-Speaker
Rush Township is appealing a ruling by the state's Office of Open Records that it must allow a former supervisor to review financial records from early 2007.
Marion J. Lazur, a township resident who served on the board of supervisors from 2002 to 2007, turned to the Right to Know Law after the township refused to turn over bills and invoices from January, February and March 2007.
"I want to see what I didn't see when I was supervisor," Lazur said.
Lazur explained that the bills and invoices are from a period when she was going through a difficult time personally, when her mother passed away and there were other issues she had to attend to.
The township, however, believes it has the right to protect certain information about vendors that received township money. There is another issue at play too, according to Rush Township Supervisor Stephen Simchak.
"The problem is she takes up a lot of time from our office employees," Simchak said.
Under a strengthened Right to Know Law in Pennsylvania, each governing body appoints an open records officer to handle such requests from the public.
The Right to Know Law allows the public to have access to official government records and information, and makes public officials more accountable for their actions. Governing bodies like Rush Township are required to disclose public records.
The state's Office of Open Records ruled that Lazur should be allowed to view the bills without being charged for copies. The township is appealing that ruling to Schuylkill County court.
At issue in the case are vendor numbers listed on bills and invoices, which the township wants to redact. Lazar, however, said she is not interested in the vendor numbers on the records she wants to view.
"I don't care if they black them out or put their thumb on them while I'm viewing the records," Lazur said.
Rush Township would like to see the decision reversed, and Lazur to not be allowed to view the records unless the township can conceal certain information and be allowed to charge her for those redacted copies.
Simchak believes that certain information regarding vendor numbers should be kept confidential.
The Office of Open Records doesn't see it that way.
"I'm always disappointed to see municipalities spend more taxpayer dollars to appeal these decisions in court but we have a good track record on these cases," said Terry Mutchler, the office's executive director.
Mutchler, whose office is involved in several hundred similar cases, said the law is clear when it comes to the request from Rush Township.
Lazur, who said she is familiar with the law after working as a paralegal for 46 years before retiring, agrees.
"They're really wrong," she said of township officials. "I'm not concerned about (the appeal). Just show me the original bills."
In its appeal, the township says the decision of the Office of Open Records is prejudicial, an abuse of discretion, contradictory to law and permits access to confidential financial information of the township.
Lazur confirmed the bills she would like to see are payments to Advance Auto Parts, Entech Engineers, Carmen Forke Jr., Smulligan Glass, ATX Telecommunication, Fegley Oil Co., E.M. Kutz Inc., Waste Management, Nextel Partners, and several law firms and newspapers.
The [Hazleton] Standard-Speaker
Rush Township is appealing a ruling by the state's Office of Open Records that it must allow a former supervisor to review financial records from early 2007.
Marion J. Lazur, a township resident who served on the board of supervisors from 2002 to 2007, turned to the Right to Know Law after the township refused to turn over bills and invoices from January, February and March 2007.
"I want to see what I didn't see when I was supervisor," Lazur said.
Lazur explained that the bills and invoices are from a period when she was going through a difficult time personally, when her mother passed away and there were other issues she had to attend to.
The township, however, believes it has the right to protect certain information about vendors that received township money. There is another issue at play too, according to Rush Township Supervisor Stephen Simchak.
"The problem is she takes up a lot of time from our office employees," Simchak said.
Under a strengthened Right to Know Law in Pennsylvania, each governing body appoints an open records officer to handle such requests from the public.
The Right to Know Law allows the public to have access to official government records and information, and makes public officials more accountable for their actions. Governing bodies like Rush Township are required to disclose public records.
The state's Office of Open Records ruled that Lazur should be allowed to view the bills without being charged for copies. The township is appealing that ruling to Schuylkill County court.
At issue in the case are vendor numbers listed on bills and invoices, which the township wants to redact. Lazar, however, said she is not interested in the vendor numbers on the records she wants to view.
"I don't care if they black them out or put their thumb on them while I'm viewing the records," Lazur said.
Rush Township would like to see the decision reversed, and Lazur to not be allowed to view the records unless the township can conceal certain information and be allowed to charge her for those redacted copies.
Simchak believes that certain information regarding vendor numbers should be kept confidential.
The Office of Open Records doesn't see it that way.
"I'm always disappointed to see municipalities spend more taxpayer dollars to appeal these decisions in court but we have a good track record on these cases," said Terry Mutchler, the office's executive director.
Mutchler, whose office is involved in several hundred similar cases, said the law is clear when it comes to the request from Rush Township.
Lazur, who said she is familiar with the law after working as a paralegal for 46 years before retiring, agrees.
"They're really wrong," she said of township officials. "I'm not concerned about (the appeal). Just show me the original bills."
In its appeal, the township says the decision of the Office of Open Records is prejudicial, an abuse of discretion, contradictory to law and permits access to confidential financial information of the township.
Lazur confirmed the bills she would like to see are payments to Advance Auto Parts, Entech Engineers, Carmen Forke Jr., Smulligan Glass, ATX Telecommunication, Fegley Oil Co., E.M. Kutz Inc., Waste Management, Nextel Partners, and several law firms and newspapers.
