Court strikes down newspaper access to full Wilkinsburg letter
December 15, 2012 Right to Know Law
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Just a month after the case was argued, a panel of Commonwealth Court judges Friday issued an opinion against the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an open-records appeal.
In August 2011, the newspaper sought access to a full employment termination letter for a Wilkinsburg borough employee, Richard Funk, who had been fired.
After a month, the borough forwarded a heavily redacted letter that revealed only that the man was terminated, but gave no explanation as to why.
Borough attorneys argued to the en banc court panel last month that reasons for the termination -- which include past disciplinary actions -- are exempted from the Right to Know Law.
The Post-Gazette's attorney, Frederick Frank, argued that because those prior disciplinary acts were included in the letter explaining the final action resulting in discharge, they became public record.
The 5-2 panel disagreed, writing that "the Right to Know Law, without exception, exempts from disclosure '[w]ritten criticisms of an employee.'"
Judges Dan Pellegrini and Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter filed a dissenting opinion.
"We are disappointed by the majority's decision in the case," Mr. Frank said. "As the dissenting judges noted, the statutory provision is clear that a final action letter must be produced without redaction."
He said the majority's decision is not consistent with the Right to Know Law or the most recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreting a similar provision of the law.
Mr. Frank said the Post-Gazette will request "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant allowance of appeal from the Commonwealth Court's decision."
Just a month after the case was argued, a panel of Commonwealth Court judges Friday issued an opinion against the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in an open-records appeal.
In August 2011, the newspaper sought access to a full employment termination letter for a Wilkinsburg borough employee, Richard Funk, who had been fired.
After a month, the borough forwarded a heavily redacted letter that revealed only that the man was terminated, but gave no explanation as to why.
Borough attorneys argued to the en banc court panel last month that reasons for the termination -- which include past disciplinary actions -- are exempted from the Right to Know Law.
The Post-Gazette's attorney, Frederick Frank, argued that because those prior disciplinary acts were included in the letter explaining the final action resulting in discharge, they became public record.
The 5-2 panel disagreed, writing that "the Right to Know Law, without exception, exempts from disclosure '[w]ritten criticisms of an employee.'"
Judges Dan Pellegrini and Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter filed a dissenting opinion.
"We are disappointed by the majority's decision in the case," Mr. Frank said. "As the dissenting judges noted, the statutory provision is clear that a final action letter must be produced without redaction."
He said the majority's decision is not consistent with the Right to Know Law or the most recent decision of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreting a similar provision of the law.
Mr. Frank said the Post-Gazette will request "the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to grant allowance of appeal from the Commonwealth Court's decision."
