Denied: Appeal filed by requester who didn't claim documents requested
Denied: An appeal by a requester
who did not claim the records he requested after
they were sent by certified mail. The request was
to Lehigh Township for copies of its 2008 audit
and solicitor's bill for 2008 and 2009.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition
Denied: An appeal by a requester who did not claim the records he requested after they were sent by certified mail. The request was to Lehigh Township for copies of its 2008 audit and solicitor's bill for 2008 and 2009.
The township had fulfilled the request, sending the requested documents to the requester via certified mail. The requester did not pick up the certified mail when delivery was attempted and notice left on Apr. 21, and then alleged in his appeal to the Office of Open Records on Apr. 24 that the township did not respond to his request.
In its response to the OOR, the township said that the requester and another individual in his household "repeatedly request documents, then never pay or accept delivery and file false appeals." The township also noted that these individuals have filed a lawsuit against the township and two of the three supervisors, and that "any document they wish to have must now be obtained through the discovery process of our judicial system."
The township further stated that is was not providing the requester with a copy of the letter to the OOR or the attachments enclosed, because it had been "forced to waste too much of the taxpayers' money on this group."
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the township provided evidence proving that four days prior to the requester filing his appeal, it had mailed the requested records via certified mail.
"Citizen was provided notice of the mailing by the USPS on April 21, 2009," the OOR noted. "Citizen did not pick up the certified mail. Citizen did not elaborate on the basis for the appeal."
The OOR noted the history of tension between the requester and the township.
"While the RTKL provides citizens with the right to access public records, it does not give citizens a license to engage in behavior that appears motivated solely by a desire to harass or annoy an agency," the OOR wrote. "Requesting a document and then refusing to retrieve it, filing an appeal and then failing to respond to the OOR only serves to waste the township’s and the commonwealth’s valuable resources."
It reminded the requester that under the law, attorney fees and costs of litigation may be awarded to an agency "if the court finds that the legal challenge ... is frivolous."
However, the OOR also cautioned the township that it cannot refuse to answer a request simply because the particular requester has made multiple requests for different documents or has a lawsuit pending against the agency. "The township cannot unilaterally determine that it is excused from compliance ...," the OOR said.
The Office of Open Records encouraged the requester and the township to consider mediation "to resolve the underlying tension in regard to RTKL requests."
Stewart vs. Lehigh Twp -- AP 2009-0328
Denied: An appeal by a requester who did not claim the records he requested after they were sent by certified mail. The request was to Lehigh Township for copies of its 2008 audit and solicitor's bill for 2008 and 2009.
The township had fulfilled the request, sending the requested documents to the requester via certified mail. The requester did not pick up the certified mail when delivery was attempted and notice left on Apr. 21, and then alleged in his appeal to the Office of Open Records on Apr. 24 that the township did not respond to his request.
In its response to the OOR, the township said that the requester and another individual in his household "repeatedly request documents, then never pay or accept delivery and file false appeals." The township also noted that these individuals have filed a lawsuit against the township and two of the three supervisors, and that "any document they wish to have must now be obtained through the discovery process of our judicial system."
The township further stated that is was not providing the requester with a copy of the letter to the OOR or the attachments enclosed, because it had been "forced to waste too much of the taxpayers' money on this group."
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the township provided evidence proving that four days prior to the requester filing his appeal, it had mailed the requested records via certified mail.
"Citizen was provided notice of the mailing by the USPS on April 21, 2009," the OOR noted. "Citizen did not pick up the certified mail. Citizen did not elaborate on the basis for the appeal."
The OOR noted the history of tension between the requester and the township.
"While the RTKL provides citizens with the right to access public records, it does not give citizens a license to engage in behavior that appears motivated solely by a desire to harass or annoy an agency," the OOR wrote. "Requesting a document and then refusing to retrieve it, filing an appeal and then failing to respond to the OOR only serves to waste the township’s and the commonwealth’s valuable resources."
It reminded the requester that under the law, attorney fees and costs of litigation may be awarded to an agency "if the court finds that the legal challenge ... is frivolous."
However, the OOR also cautioned the township that it cannot refuse to answer a request simply because the particular requester has made multiple requests for different documents or has a lawsuit pending against the agency. "The township cannot unilaterally determine that it is excused from compliance ...," the OOR said.
The Office of Open Records encouraged the requester and the township to consider mediation "to resolve the underlying tension in regard to RTKL requests."
Stewart vs. Lehigh Twp -- AP 2009-0328