Granted: Emails to or from township supervisors
March 11, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Denied
| Appealed to
court | Worcester
Twp | Emails
| Non-specific
requests
Granted in part and denied in
part: Seven requests for emails to or
from the Worcester Township supervisors. The
township, in denying the request entirely, stated
that some of the emails were insufficiently
described to enable it to respond, and that the
others did not constitute public records, were
not in the township's possession or were
privileged.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted in part and denied in part: Seven requests for emails to or from the Worcester Township supervisors. The township, in denying the request entirely, stated that some of the emails were insufficiently described to enable it to respond, and that the others did not constitute public records, were not in the township's possession or were privileged.
The Office of Open Records noted that the township did not appear to have conducted a good-faith review to assess whether it could provide any of the emails requested, but instead denied the request in its entirety.
Requested were emails between any or all of the township supervisors regarding two certain properties for the past year, and one of those properties for the past five years. The other requests were for emails "regarding any township business for the past year," "regarding any township business for the past five years," and between the supervisors "and any/or all township employees regarding township business" for both the past year and for the past five years.
The requester specified that his request covered emails "regardless of whether they were transmitted on their personal computers or email accounts."
The Office of Open Records ruled that the request for emails regarding the specific properties be granted, saying that the township's arguments denying the request were untenable.
As to the remaining requests, the OOR ruled that while the law does not require a request to identify specific documents or subject, it told the township to provide a sampling of emails so that the requester could refine his request:
"But in the interest of interpreting the new RTKL so as not to yield an infeasible result, while giving full effect to the purpose of openness, the OOR finds that the township shall conduct a good-faith review of emails by and between township supervisors and employees over the past year and five years to provide a few examples of such public records to enable [the requester] to craft a more specific request, which shall be more limited in type, subject matter, time frame, and scope."
Mollick vs. Worcester Township -- AP 2009-0058
APPEALED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT: April 9, 2009
Granted in part and denied in part: Seven requests for emails to or from the Worcester Township supervisors. The township, in denying the request entirely, stated that some of the emails were insufficiently described to enable it to respond, and that the others did not constitute public records, were not in the township's possession or were privileged.
The Office of Open Records noted that the township did not appear to have conducted a good-faith review to assess whether it could provide any of the emails requested, but instead denied the request in its entirety.
Requested were emails between any or all of the township supervisors regarding two certain properties for the past year, and one of those properties for the past five years. The other requests were for emails "regarding any township business for the past year," "regarding any township business for the past five years," and between the supervisors "and any/or all township employees regarding township business" for both the past year and for the past five years.
The requester specified that his request covered emails "regardless of whether they were transmitted on their personal computers or email accounts."
The Office of Open Records ruled that the request for emails regarding the specific properties be granted, saying that the township's arguments denying the request were untenable.
As to the remaining requests, the OOR ruled that while the law does not require a request to identify specific documents or subject, it told the township to provide a sampling of emails so that the requester could refine his request:
"But in the interest of interpreting the new RTKL so as not to yield an infeasible result, while giving full effect to the purpose of openness, the OOR finds that the township shall conduct a good-faith review of emails by and between township supervisors and employees over the past year and five years to provide a few examples of such public records to enable [the requester] to craft a more specific request, which shall be more limited in type, subject matter, time frame, and scope."
Mollick vs. Worcester Township -- AP 2009-0058
APPEALED TO MONTGOMERY COUNTY COURT: April 9, 2009