Pennsylvanians for Union Reform v. Pa. Office of Admin.
| Decision Date | 18 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1019 C.D. 2014,1019 C.D. 2014 |
| Citation | 129 A.3d 1246 |
| Parties | PENNSYLVANIANS FOR UNION REFORM, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Joshua D. Bonn, Harrisburg, for petitioner.
Crystal D. Fox, Senior Counsel, Harrisburg, for respondent.
Bruce M. Ludwig, Philadelphia, for intervenor Kenneth Jasper.
BEFORE: BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge, and ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge, and ANNE E. COVEY, Judge.
OPINION BY Judge COVEY.
Pennsylvanians for Union Reform (PFUR) petitions for review of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Record's (OOR) June 12, 2014 Final Determination denying PFUR's appeal from the Pennsylvania Office of Administration's (OA) denial of PFUR's Right–to–Know Law (RTKL)1 request. There are three issues for this Court's review: (1) whether OOR erred by addressing OA's substantive arguments in support of its denial before determining whether OA possessed responsive records; (2) whether OOR erred by concluding that public disclosure of payroll deductions for union political action committee (PAC) contributions would violate Kenneth Jasper's (Jasper) right to freedom of association under the First Amendment to the United States (U.S.) Constitution; and (3) whether OOR erred and abused its discretion by permitting Jasper to participate in OOR's proceedings.
Commonwealth employee bargaining unit members have the opportunity to have PAC contributions deducted from their paychecks and transferred to PACs. The authority for this deduction and transfer is memorialized in certain Commonwealth collective bargaining agreements, including the July 1, 2011 to June 30, 2015 agreement between the Commonwealth and Services Employees International Union Local 668 (Union). See OA Br. at 9.2 On April 3, 2014, PFUR filed a RTKL request (Request) with OA for "records showing all Union [PAC] contributions processed by agency payroll deduction between ... January 1, 2014 and March 31, 2014" for 30 employees from the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board and Union members Daniel Gray (Gray) and Jasper, who are employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (L & I). Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 1a. The Request stated: R.R. at 2a.
R.R. at 4a (emphasis in original). OA stated that it did not possess records for Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education or Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board employees.4
On May 13, 2014, PFUR appealed to OOR, but limited its appeal to OA's denial of Jasper's and Gray's PAC contribution records. PFUR contended that OA's refusal to inform PFUR whether or not responsive records existed as required by Section 901 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.901, constitutes and it was not required to address OA's grounds for deemed denial. R.R. at 10a. PFUR also asserted that OA acted in bad faith and unreasonably interpreted the law. Accordingly, PFUR requested OOR to issue an order enforcing the requirements of Section 901 of the RTKL and requiring OA to inform PFUR regarding whether or not OA possesses the requested records. R.R. at 11a.
By May 14, 2014 notice, OOR permitted the parties to supplement the record. OOR's notice also mandated that Jasper and Gray receive notification that PFUR was seeking records that contain their personal information, and that they may participate in the appeal as interested third parties.5 Both PFUR and OA notified Jasper and Gray of the appeal. On May 20, 2014, Jasper filed a Request to Participate accompanied by a position statement in which he represented, in pertinent part, that "[he] may or may not have made contributions to the Union's [PAC]." R.R. at 25a. Jasper articulated that he "consider[s] deductions made from [his] gross wages to be personal financial information exempt from disclosure under the [RTKL]." R.R. at 25a. Jasper authorized the Union to represent his interests in this appeal.
In accordance with OOR's May 14, 2014 notice, OA timely responded to PFUR's appeal on May 23, 2014. Therein, OA represented that it denied the Request, "relying upon the OOR's opinion in [PFUR I ] ... and all of the case law to which it refers, and upon the logic reflected in OA's record supplementation in [PFUR I ]...." R.R. at 27a.
By May 27, 2014 letter, the Union notified OOR that it represented Jasper, and asserted that: (1) the requested information constitutes personal financial information exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(6)(i)(A) of the RTKL; (2) release of the information would infringe on Jasper's freedom of association right protected by the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions; (3) the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(12) of the RTKL as material prepared for an agency employee not connected with OA's business, the employee names and deduction amounts are not "records" under Section 102 of the RTKL,6 and revealing the information would be an invasion of Jasper's privacy and risk his personal security under Section 708(b)(ii) of the RTKL;7 (4) PFUR's appeal should be denied based on the OOR's final determination in PFUR I that PFUR is not entitled to the very information it now seeks; and, (5) the appeal should be denied under Section 506(a)(1) of the RTKL8 because OOR previously considered and denied identical PFUR appeals in 2012 (OOR Docket No. 2013–0859)9 and 2013 (PFUR I ), and the repeated requests and protracted litigation have unreasonably burdened OA and the Union's members. See R.R. at 145a–151a.
On May 27, 2014, Gray filed a Request to Participate. In his position statement attached thereto, he disclosed: "I have never authorized nor have I ever had any [PAC] contributions deducted from my paycheck by any Commonwealth agency and I do not consider this fact to be personal or private." R.R. at 144a. Gray did not authorize the Union to represent his interests.
On May 28, 2014, OOR granted Jasper's Request to Participate because his allegation that records of any PAC contributions he may have made are not subject to disclosure would be probative of whether PAC contributions of a specifically-identified employee are public records under the RTKL.10 See R.R. at 152a; see also Section 1101(c)(2)(iii) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c)(2)(iii). OOR denied Gray's Request to Participate, reasoning that because Gray admitted he made no PAC contributions by Commonwealth paycheck deduction, OOR's decision in this case would have no bearing on him. See R.R. at 152a.
On May 30, 2014, PFUR filed its appeal supplement, in which it argued that: (1) OA should be sanctioned for refusing to issue a denial when it knew that it had no responsive records for Gray, and it failed to state whether it had records relating to Jasper; (2) Jasper should be sanctioned for proactively involving himself in the appeal in bad faith due to his refusal to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; and, (3) if responsive records do exist regarding Jasper, OA failed to meet its burden of proving that they are public records exempt from disclosure, particularly when PACs must report all contributions in their campaign finance reports.
On June 12, 2014, OOR issued its Final Determination denying PFUR's appeal because "[t]he government may not disclose both the employee's name and the amount of any financial contribution without infringing on the employee's right to freedom of association[;]" whether or not information is available under the Pennsylvania Election Code (Election Code)11 "does not render that information public under the RTKL[;]" and, OOR is without authority to sanction OA. R.R. at 173a–174a. PFUR appealed to this Court.12
"The RTKL was designed to promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their actions." Office of the Governor v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105, 1107 n. 1 (Pa.Cmwlth.2013). Accordingly, Section 301(a) of the RTKL requires that "[a] Commonwealth agency shall provide public records in accordance with [the RTKL]." 65 P.S. § 67.301(a). Section 305(a) of the RTKL states:
To continue reading
Request your trial