State Supreme Court rules partly in Trib's favor in open records request
August 21, 2013 Right to Know Law
By Bobby Kerlik
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled partly in the Tribune-Review's favor in an open records case involving the spending of millions of dollars in Homeland Security grants.
In a 4-2 decision, the justices ruled that appellate courts can decide records requests on appeal from the state's Office of Open Records. The ruling means that courts don't have to defer to what the office says when a party appeals a decision.
“It's critically important because the decisions of the office are the work product of the staff and the executive director, who is appointed by the governor. They're not an independent agency,” said attorney David Strassburger, who represents the Trib.
“If all we were dealing with was former journalist (and Office of Open Records Director) Terry Mutchler, then I would have taken a different position. You have to take a long view. Say there was a retired state trooper in there and, as a practical matter, things could go the wrong way.”
The office argued that a court review undermines the ability for people who request access to taxpayer-funded public records to obtain speedy results.
Mutchler said she had hoped for a different outcome. She said state agencies sometimes wait until they go to court before presenting a full open-records argument. Giving deference to the Office of Open Records' decisions would force agencies to present all arguments to the office, she said.
“We wanted the Office of Open Records to be treated as the real game and not the warmup,” Mutchler said.
Mutchler said she understands the Trib's argument, “but what comes with that is time and delay.”
“Do we stick with the concept of maximum access quickly, or do we add that safety net and take additional evidence?” she said.
The ruling upheld a 2010 Commonwealth Court decision. That court overturned a decision by the Office of Open Records that allowed the release of heavily redacted records on how fire departments and other agencies spent about $96 million in federal grants.
Commonwealth Court upheld the idea that government agencies must prove they have a good reason for withholding information from the public, lawyers said.
Staff writer Brian Bowling had sought the records on behalf of the newspaper.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency initially released a list of equipment that the grants paid for, but the list did not include names of agencies that received money.
The agency claimed making public such information would endanger state security. Mutchler's office agreed.
The agency eventually released the information after the court ruling.
The Supreme Court also ruled that courts can take additional evidence on appeal, something the Trib argued against. Allowing courts to do so effectively requires a requestor to hire an attorney, Strassburger said.
“Citizens shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to get records,” he said.
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
The state Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled partly in the Tribune-Review's favor in an open records case involving the spending of millions of dollars in Homeland Security grants.
In a 4-2 decision, the justices ruled that appellate courts can decide records requests on appeal from the state's Office of Open Records. The ruling means that courts don't have to defer to what the office says when a party appeals a decision.
“It's critically important because the decisions of the office are the work product of the staff and the executive director, who is appointed by the governor. They're not an independent agency,” said attorney David Strassburger, who represents the Trib.
“If all we were dealing with was former journalist (and Office of Open Records Director) Terry Mutchler, then I would have taken a different position. You have to take a long view. Say there was a retired state trooper in there and, as a practical matter, things could go the wrong way.”
The office argued that a court review undermines the ability for people who request access to taxpayer-funded public records to obtain speedy results.
Mutchler said she had hoped for a different outcome. She said state agencies sometimes wait until they go to court before presenting a full open-records argument. Giving deference to the Office of Open Records' decisions would force agencies to present all arguments to the office, she said.
“We wanted the Office of Open Records to be treated as the real game and not the warmup,” Mutchler said.
Mutchler said she understands the Trib's argument, “but what comes with that is time and delay.”
“Do we stick with the concept of maximum access quickly, or do we add that safety net and take additional evidence?” she said.
The ruling upheld a 2010 Commonwealth Court decision. That court overturned a decision by the Office of Open Records that allowed the release of heavily redacted records on how fire departments and other agencies spent about $96 million in federal grants.
Commonwealth Court upheld the idea that government agencies must prove they have a good reason for withholding information from the public, lawyers said.
Staff writer Brian Bowling had sought the records on behalf of the newspaper.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency initially released a list of equipment that the grants paid for, but the list did not include names of agencies that received money.
The agency claimed making public such information would endanger state security. Mutchler's office agreed.
The agency eventually released the information after the court ruling.
The Supreme Court also ruled that courts can take additional evidence on appeal, something the Trib argued against. Allowing courts to do so effectively requires a requestor to hire an attorney, Strassburger said.
“Citizens shouldn't have to hire a lawyer to get records,” he said.
