Granted: Employee hometowns, dates of birth, in Coatesville's 2nd warning
May 26, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Coatesville
| Personal
information | Addressess
| Agency
non-compliance
Granted: A request for
Coatesville's payroll list, including employee
hometowns and dates of birth.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition
Granted: A request for Coatesville's payroll list, including employee hometowns and dates of birth.
The city provided all information requested with the exception of hometown and dates of birth for employees, citing the Right to Know Law's exception for personal identifying information.
"Releasing the hometowns and dates of birth will amount to an invasion of privacy," the city stated in its denial. "Such information can be made public only if an allegation of fraud or abuse exists to overcome the presumption in favor of privacy."
The Office of Open Records, in its response, noted that the request was addressed to the city manager, "presumably because the city has not officially appointed an open records officer." It noted that a review of the city's Internet site revealed no information concerning an open records officer or the RTKL, which is required by law.
The OOR, in responding to the appeal, alerted the city to two previous decisions relevant to this case: Parsons vs. Port Authority of Pittsburgh AP 2009-0008 and Green vs. Pocono Mountain School District AP 2009-0103, where dates of birth and home address were ruled to be public record.
The city failed to respond to the Office of Open Records in a timely manner regarding the appeal, and the requester declined to agree to a second extension of the deadline for response.
The city's solicitor submitted a memo to the OOR the evening before the OOR's final determination was due, stating that the hometown and date of birth information could be withheld under the personal information and medical information exemptions.
The Office of Open Records granted the appeal, citing its previous decisions and calling the city's belated response to the appeal an "inaccurate assertion," and also failed to cite any legal authority, as required by the RTKL.
It also noted in strong language that Coatesville had ignored a previous warning in a March 20 opinion that it was out of compliance with the Right to Know Law by failing to appoint an open records officer and post RTKL information on its web site.
Shea vs. City of Coatesville -- AP 2009-0326
Granted: A request for Coatesville's payroll list, including employee hometowns and dates of birth.
The city provided all information requested with the exception of hometown and dates of birth for employees, citing the Right to Know Law's exception for personal identifying information.
"Releasing the hometowns and dates of birth will amount to an invasion of privacy," the city stated in its denial. "Such information can be made public only if an allegation of fraud or abuse exists to overcome the presumption in favor of privacy."
The Office of Open Records, in its response, noted that the request was addressed to the city manager, "presumably because the city has not officially appointed an open records officer." It noted that a review of the city's Internet site revealed no information concerning an open records officer or the RTKL, which is required by law.
The OOR, in responding to the appeal, alerted the city to two previous decisions relevant to this case: Parsons vs. Port Authority of Pittsburgh AP 2009-0008 and Green vs. Pocono Mountain School District AP 2009-0103, where dates of birth and home address were ruled to be public record.
The city failed to respond to the Office of Open Records in a timely manner regarding the appeal, and the requester declined to agree to a second extension of the deadline for response.
The city's solicitor submitted a memo to the OOR the evening before the OOR's final determination was due, stating that the hometown and date of birth information could be withheld under the personal information and medical information exemptions.
The Office of Open Records granted the appeal, citing its previous decisions and calling the city's belated response to the appeal an "inaccurate assertion," and also failed to cite any legal authority, as required by the RTKL.
It also noted in strong language that Coatesville had ignored a previous warning in a March 20 opinion that it was out of compliance with the Right to Know Law by failing to appoint an open records officer and post RTKL information on its web site.
Shea vs. City of Coatesville -- AP 2009-0326