Granted: Financial and driver information from L&L Fire Co.
Granted: Access to financial and
vehicle driver information from the L&L Fire
Company of Weatherly. The request had been denied
based on lack of specificity and the argument
that volunteer fire companies need only provide
financial information in response to Right to
Know requests.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: Access to financial and vehicle driver information from the L&L Fire Company of Weatherly. The request had been denied based on lack of specificity and the argument that volunteer fire companies need only provide financial information in response to Right to Know requests.
The Office of Open Records, in its ruling, noted that the fire company was a local agency subject to the Right to Know Law, and cited its previous ruling in Pierce vs. Morris Township and Morris Township Fire Company. It also noted that the fire company did not argue that it is not a local agency, and that it responded to the RTK request in accordance with the RTKL.
The OOR ruled that:
-- The request was sufficiently specific. "In many instances, a requester will not necessarily know the agency nomenclature for the various records it keeps," it noted. "In this case, L&L responded to [the requester's] request stating that he did not 'name' specific records."
The OOR concluded that the request for records of "incoming and outgoing monies for the last five years" was sufficient in terms of time frame and information for the company to determine the records sought. "The claim that 'it is impossible to determine' which records are sought is without merit," the OOR said.
-- Volunteer fire companies must disclose all public records. It again referred to its previous ruling in Pierce vs. Morris Township that stated "... the OOR concludes that volunteer fire companies are local agencies and subject to the RTKL in all its aspects."
Hoffman vs. L&L Fire Company -- AP 2009-0229
Granted: Access to financial and vehicle driver information from the L&L Fire Company of Weatherly. The request had been denied based on lack of specificity and the argument that volunteer fire companies need only provide financial information in response to Right to Know requests.
The Office of Open Records, in its ruling, noted that the fire company was a local agency subject to the Right to Know Law, and cited its previous ruling in Pierce vs. Morris Township and Morris Township Fire Company. It also noted that the fire company did not argue that it is not a local agency, and that it responded to the RTK request in accordance with the RTKL.
The OOR ruled that:
-- The request was sufficiently specific. "In many instances, a requester will not necessarily know the agency nomenclature for the various records it keeps," it noted. "In this case, L&L responded to [the requester's] request stating that he did not 'name' specific records."
The OOR concluded that the request for records of "incoming and outgoing monies for the last five years" was sufficient in terms of time frame and information for the company to determine the records sought. "The claim that 'it is impossible to determine' which records are sought is without merit," the OOR said.
-- Volunteer fire companies must disclose all public records. It again referred to its previous ruling in Pierce vs. Morris Township that stated "... the OOR concludes that volunteer fire companies are local agencies and subject to the RTKL in all its aspects."
Hoffman vs. L&L Fire Company -- AP 2009-0229