Governor's Office of Administration v. S. Campbell ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •             IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Governor's Office                        :
    of Administration,                       :
    :
    Petitioner :
    :
    v.                : No. 103 C.D. 2017
    : Submitted: July 7, 2017
    Simon Campbell,                          :
    :
    Respondent :
    BEFORE:        HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    HONORABLE JOSEPH M. COSGROVE, Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                              FILED: September 28, 2017
    The Governor’s Office of Administration (OA) petitions for review
    from a final determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR) that granted in
    part and denied in part Simon Campbell’s (Requester) request under the Right-to-
    Know Law (RTKL).1 OA argues that the OOR erred by: ordering the OA to
    disclose records that are the subject of separate, and likely dispositive litigation;
    ordering the wholesale disclosure of employee county of residence without
    affording those affected the ability to protect such information; and failing to
    consider whether employee county of residence is subject to constitutional
    protections.
    1
    Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§67.101-67.3104.
    On October 19, 2016, Requester submitted the following request to
    the OA:
    For all Commonwealth employees whose names exist
    inside the computerized databases of OA: please extract
    from OA’s computerized databases the full names of
    those Commonwealth employees, their position/job titles,
    their dates of birth, and their counties of residence and
    send this information to me in electronic format only. It
    will be helpful to me in terms of obtaining their home
    addresses.
    Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 14a-15a. OA partially granted and partially denied
    the request.     Specifically, OA directed Requester to the publicly accessible
    electronic     database   at   www.pennwatch.pa.gov      (PennWatch)       where   the
    Commonwealth posts information regarding budget, spending, revenue and
    employees.       Of the records requested, the names and job titles of the
    Commonwealth employees, along with their salaries, compensation, and
    employing agency, subject to redactions permitted under Section 708(b) of the
    RTKL, 65 P.S. §67.708(b), are posted at PennWatch. R.R. at 18a. However, the
    OA denied the request to the extent it sought employees’ dates of birth and
    counties of residence.
    Requester appealed to the OOR challenging the denial and asserting
    the information requested is subject to public disclosure.       The OA provided
    supplemental information and requested a stay of proceedings based on McCord v.
    Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 
    136 A.3d 1055
    , 1068 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal
    granted sub nom., Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, (Pa., No. 111 MAP
    2016, filed November 10, 2016) (Reese), now pending before the Supreme Court,
    which involves the same issue presented here. The OOR did not enter a stay, but
    2
    instead granted the appeal in part and denied the appeal in part. The OOR denied
    the appeal to the extent the request sought the employees’ dates of birth. However,
    the OOR granted the appeal insofar as the request sought employee county of
    residence information. The OOR directed the OA to provide Requester with the
    employees’ counties of residence within 30 days of the date of the order.
    The OA now petitions this Court for review.2 The OA contends that
    the OOR erred in failing to stay judgment pending the Supreme Court’s disposition
    of Reese. Reese involves the identical issue presented here, namely, whether an
    employee’s county of residence is subject to disclosure. The Supreme Court
    granted review in Reese in order to address the impact of Pennsylvania State
    Educational     Association      v.   Department      of    Community       and    Economic
    Development, 
    148 A.3d 142
    (Pa. 2016) (PSEA) on the issue. On this basis, the OA
    renews its request for a stay of the proceedings in this Court. Alternatively, if a
    stay is not granted, the OA argues that the OOR erred by failing to offer due
    process to the employees implicated by the request when it ordered the wholesale
    disclosure of employees’ counties of residence and without the participation of the
    employees who are the subjects of the information. Finally, the OA asserts that the
    OOR should have conducted a balancing test, based on PSEA, before directing the
    disclosure of personal information, including the county of residence.3
    2
    For appeals from determinations made by the OOR involving Commonwealth agencies,
    our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Bowling v. Office of Open
    Records, 
    75 A.3d 453
    , 477 (Pa. 2013).
    3
    Requester did not file a brief in opposition or otherwise oppose the OA’s renewed
    request for stay.
    3
    We first address the request for stay. In Reese, the Pennsylvanians for
    Union Reform (PFUR) submitted a RTKL request to then-State Treasurer, Robert
    M. McCord, later replaced by Timothy P. Reese (Treasurer)4 for the production of
    an unredacted copy of a list of all Commonwealth employees compiled pursuant to
    Section 614 of the Administrative Code of 1929 (Administrative Code).5 Section
    614 of the Administrative Code explicitly makes an employee’s county of
    residence, among other things, public. The Treasurer filed a petition for review in
    the nature of a complaint against PFUR and its president (Requester herein),
    seeking declaratory and injunctive relief concerning application of the RTKL and
    its exceptions to PFUR’s request. After the pleadings closed, the Treasurer filed a
    motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. We held that the list requested is to
    be accessible to Commonwealth citizens at the State Library without a written
    request or other limitation by RTKL. 
    Reese, 136 A.3d at 1068
    . Thus, we denied
    the Treasurer’s partial motion and dismissed his claim for injunctive relief.
    The Treasurer, intervenors, and the OA appealed from this decision.
    The Supreme Court granted review, consolidated the appeals, and directed
    supplemental briefs addressing the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in
    PSEA, which was rendered months after this Court’s decision in Reese. In PSEA,
    the Supreme Court held that a Commonwealth employee’s right to informational
    privacy in his or her home address “is guaranteed by Article 1, Section 1 of the
    Pennsylvania Constitution, and may not be violated unless outweighed by a public
    4
    McCord resigned his office on January 30, 2015. Timothy P. Reese became State
    Treasurer on June 26, 2015. Under Pa. R.A.P. 502(c), when a public officer named in an appeal
    ceases to hold office, “his successor is automatically substituted as a party.”
    5
    Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, added by Section 3 of the Act of September 27, 1978,
    P.L. 775, as amended, 71 P.S. §234.
    4
    interest favoring 
    disclosure.” 148 A.3d at 158
    . Reese remains pending before the
    Supreme Court.
    In its request to stay proceedings, the OA asserts that the wholesale
    disclosure of the records in question would defeat or moot the ongoing work by the
    Supreme Court, which will likely be dispositive on the subject. Moreover, to
    proceed without a stay would create duplicative, unnecessary work for the parties
    and waste judicial resources. Any decision entered before the Supreme Court’s
    decision could cause confusion. For these reasons, the OA urges this Court to wait
    until the Supreme Court defines the impact of PSEA on counties of residence
    before deciding the merits of this appeal.
    Upon review of Reese and PSEA, and given the identity of the issues
    and parties involved, we believe the prudent approach is to hold the matter in
    abeyance until the Supreme Court clarifies the impact of PSEA on whether county
    of residence information is subject to or protected from public disclosure. See
    Commonwealth v. Pennsylvania State Police, 
    146 A.3d 814
    , 819 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2016).
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    5
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Governor's Office                    :
    of Administration,                   :
    :
    Petitioner :
    :
    v.              : No. 103 C.D. 2017
    :
    Simon Campbell,                      :
    :
    Respondent :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2017, the above-captioned
    matter is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
    disposition of McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, 
    136 A.3d 1055
    , 1068
    (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal granted sub nom., Reese v. Pennsylvanians for Union
    Reform, (Pa., No. 111 MAP 2016, filed November 10, 2016).
    Petitioner shall file a status report not later than 30 days following the
    Supreme Court’s disposition of Reese, or by January 11, 2018, whichever occurs
    earlier.
    __________________________________
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 103 C.D. 2017

Judges: Wojcik, J.

Filed Date: 9/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/13/2024