Granted: Scranton Parking Authority lease contract with restaurant
June 25, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Scranton
| Media
request | Trade
secrets | Third-party
contractors | Agency
non-compliance
Granted: A request for a copy of
a lease and subsequent renewal between the
Scranton Parking Authority and Molly Brannigan's
restaurant. The city had denied the request,
claiming the lease contained confidential
information bargained for by the parking
authority and its commercial client.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: A request for a copy of a lease and subsequent renewal between the Scranton Parking Authority and Molly Brannigan's restaurant. The city had denied the request, claiming the lease contained confidential information bargained for by the parking authority and its commercial client.
In its ruling, the Office of Open Records noted that with regard to "confidential proprietary information," the standard of definition is high, and "may only be established when the party asserting protection shows that the information at issue is either 'commercial' or 'financial' and is privileged or confidential, and the disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm."
"Here," the OOR noted, "no more than potential harm is alleged."
The OOR further stated that the information sought was no more than the contract resulting from the negotiations between the agency and the contractor.
"This is exactly the type of financial information that the RTKL intends to make public unless specifically exempt," the Office of Open Records stated. "Therefore, the OOR finds that the lease, the lease renewal and the rental payments per square foot does not constitute proprietary confidential information and are squarely public records under the RTKL."
Burton vs. Scranton Parking Authority -- AP 2009-0428
Granted: A request for a copy of a lease and subsequent renewal between the Scranton Parking Authority and Molly Brannigan's restaurant. The city had denied the request, claiming the lease contained confidential information bargained for by the parking authority and its commercial client.
In its ruling, the Office of Open Records noted that with regard to "confidential proprietary information," the standard of definition is high, and "may only be established when the party asserting protection shows that the information at issue is either 'commercial' or 'financial' and is privileged or confidential, and the disclosure would cause substantial competitive harm."
"Here," the OOR noted, "no more than potential harm is alleged."
The OOR further stated that the information sought was no more than the contract resulting from the negotiations between the agency and the contractor.
"This is exactly the type of financial information that the RTKL intends to make public unless specifically exempt," the Office of Open Records stated. "Therefore, the OOR finds that the lease, the lease renewal and the rental payments per square foot does not constitute proprietary confidential information and are squarely public records under the RTKL."
Burton vs. Scranton Parking Authority -- AP 2009-0428