Teacher address open records case sent back to Pa. lower court
August 22, 2012 Right to Know Law
By MARK SCOLFORO,
Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The state's largest teachers' union on Tuesday won a second chance to have a lower court consider whether its members' rights would be violated by disclosure of their home addresses.
The state Supreme Court ruled 5-1 to send the closely watched lawsuit by the Pennsylvania State Education Association and several of its members regarding the Right-to-Know Law back to Commonwealth Court for further proceedings.
Commonwealth Court had thrown out the lawsuit, but the justices reversed that, saying there had to be a way for the teachers to bring the Office of Open Records into court to address issues that affect them, particularly whether a personal security exception in the law should prevent disclosure.
The teachers took the Office of Open Records to court not in relation to any specific records request but in an effort to prevent future disclosure by any school district of their addresses.
Justice Thomas Saylor's majority opinion said the Supreme Court agreed with the union that the Office of Open Records "may fairly be regarded as an indispensable party to their efforts to secure a just, timely and meaningful judicial resolution of their claims."
Office of Open Records executive director Terry Mutchler and a union spokesman said the decision was being reviewed to determine the next steps.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille, in a concurring opinion joined by one other justice, said the case showed how the current version of the law, enacted four years ago, can create problems for third parties who want to participate in a records request.
"The result of the Commonwealth Court's decision was that a significant number of persons, the only persons whose privacy was directly affected by the (Office of Open Records') decision, were left with no legal recourse," Castille wrote, encouraging the lower court to "be more vigilant" in trying to interpret the law, which he said had "statutory gaps."
He said the Commonwealth Court "should be mindful of its impact on the real people affected by the requests, along with the effects on the agency responding (sometimes unevenly) to record requests."
The dissent, by Justice J. Michael Eakin, said the Office of Open Records wasn't an "indispensable party" because it acts similar to a court and "should not be forced to convert itself into the partisan advocate against a party whose action it has heard."
Eakin said the Right-to-Know Law dictates that the parties involved should be limited to the person making the request and the school districts with the records, rather than the Office of Open Records, which was brought in by the teachers' union as it sought a declaratory judgment.
The Right-to-Know Law specifically prevents disclosure of the home addresses of judges, people who work in law enforcement and children. The union had argued disclosing addresses of school employees would put their safety at risk.
A lawyer for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said the high court ruling did not resolve whether the addresses will be disclosed or not, a decision that Commonwealth Court will have to make. An injunction that prevents schools from releasing that information while the case is pending remains in place.
© 2012 The Associated Press – Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The state's largest teachers' union on Tuesday won a second chance to have a lower court consider whether its members' rights would be violated by disclosure of their home addresses.
The state Supreme Court ruled 5-1 to send the closely watched lawsuit by the Pennsylvania State Education Association and several of its members regarding the Right-to-Know Law back to Commonwealth Court for further proceedings.
Commonwealth Court had thrown out the lawsuit, but the justices reversed that, saying there had to be a way for the teachers to bring the Office of Open Records into court to address issues that affect them, particularly whether a personal security exception in the law should prevent disclosure.
The teachers took the Office of Open Records to court not in relation to any specific records request but in an effort to prevent future disclosure by any school district of their addresses.
Justice Thomas Saylor's majority opinion said the Supreme Court agreed with the union that the Office of Open Records "may fairly be regarded as an indispensable party to their efforts to secure a just, timely and meaningful judicial resolution of their claims."
Office of Open Records executive director Terry Mutchler and a union spokesman said the decision was being reviewed to determine the next steps.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille, in a concurring opinion joined by one other justice, said the case showed how the current version of the law, enacted four years ago, can create problems for third parties who want to participate in a records request.
"The result of the Commonwealth Court's decision was that a significant number of persons, the only persons whose privacy was directly affected by the (Office of Open Records') decision, were left with no legal recourse," Castille wrote, encouraging the lower court to "be more vigilant" in trying to interpret the law, which he said had "statutory gaps."
He said the Commonwealth Court "should be mindful of its impact on the real people affected by the requests, along with the effects on the agency responding (sometimes unevenly) to record requests."
The dissent, by Justice J. Michael Eakin, said the Office of Open Records wasn't an "indispensable party" because it acts similar to a court and "should not be forced to convert itself into the partisan advocate against a party whose action it has heard."
Eakin said the Right-to-Know Law dictates that the parties involved should be limited to the person making the request and the school districts with the records, rather than the Office of Open Records, which was brought in by the teachers' union as it sought a declaratory judgment.
The Right-to-Know Law specifically prevents disclosure of the home addresses of judges, people who work in law enforcement and children. The union had argued disclosing addresses of school employees would put their safety at risk.
A lawyer for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said the high court ruling did not resolve whether the addresses will be disclosed or not, a decision that Commonwealth Court will have to make. An injunction that prevents schools from releasing that information while the case is pending remains in place.
© 2012 The Associated Press – Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
