Local Government TV

▼

Monday, June 11, 2012

Court Strikes Blow For Right to Know

Last week, a sharply divided Commonwealth Court ruled, 4-3, that a Governor has no obligation to produce his daily schedule, at least to the extent that doing so would reveal "predecisional deliberations." Now, in yet another close one, this appellate court has struck a blow in favor of the public's right to know.

In an Opinion on behalf of a 4-judge Majority, Judge Leadbetter rules that a state agency cannot ignore a request for records simply because it fails to refer specifically to the Right-to-Know Law or comply with all the niceties. Written requests for records are Right-to-Know requests so long as they "identify the requested record and include the requester’s name and address." If there is some technical deficiency, "the open-records officer in the agency must so notify the requester of this fact so that the requester can resubmit the request."

In a strongly worded dissent, President Judge Pellegrini scoffs at Leadbetter's ruling. "Because the majority’s holding would make an unaddressed request written on the back of a brown paper bag and given to a PennDot plow driver by the side of the road on a snowy winter night a valid right-to-know law request, I respectfully dissent."

Judges Bernard McGinley and the Lehigh Valley's Renee Cohn Jubelirer join Pellegrini.
at

6 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 11, 2012 at 4:40 PM

    sloppy decision

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousJune 11, 2012 at 5:57 PM

    Not sloppy just another judge not forgetting how america became the great nation it is, and also not forgetting why he became a lawyer. We the people not of some secret order or class!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark BakerJune 11, 2012 at 6:40 PM

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousJune 11, 2012 at 9:29 PM

    You can call that opinion many things, but sloppy is not one of them I have always respected the scholarship of the judges on the Commonwealth Court and especially the two judges from the Valley, Judge Cohen and Simpson. Both the dissent and majority are well written and there is a legitimate disagreement. That said, a law like that should be interpreted in favor of disclosure and against bureaucracy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bernie O'HareJune 11, 2012 at 9:35 PM

    For what it is worth, I thought both opinions were well-written, but obviously agree with the Majority and in favor of the public's right to know and against the exaltation of form over substance.

    Judge Simpson actually dissented in the case I mentioned last week, which involves Governor Corbett's schedule.

    You think it is a good court? I heard it is a political court, but don't know that to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousJune 12, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    I primarily follow their zoning cases and they seem to to do thier best and usually come to the right result with observence to the law.

    That said, its hard for a court with jurisdiction over petition challenges and election challenges not to seem political.

    ReplyDelete

You own views are appreciated, especially if they differ from mine. But remember, commenting is a privilege, not a right. I will delete personal attacks or off-topic remarks at my discretion. Comments that play into the tribalism that has consumed this nation will be declined. So will comments alleging voter fraud unless backed up by concrete evidence. If you attack someone personally, I expect you to identify yourself. I will delete criticisms of my comment policy, vulgarities, cut-and-paste jobs from other sources and any suggestion of violence towards anyone. I will also delete sweeping generalizations about mainstream parties or ideologies, i.e. identity politics. My decisions on these matters are made on a case by case basis, and may be affected by my mood that day, my access to the blog at the time the comment was made or other information that isn’t readily apparent.