Denied: Appeal that request not fully granted
Denied: An appeal based on the
requester's belief that he did not receive a
complete response to his request for contact
information for Williamsport city employees.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Denied: An appeal based on the requester's belief that he did not receive a complete response to his request for contact information for Williamsport city employees.
The requester had asked for the computer database or spreadsheet file that contained the full name, title, address, telephone number and extension, fax number, email address and department for every municipal employee. The city responded with a compiled spreadsheet showing that information.
The requester appealed to the Office of Open Records, claiming his request was partially denied in that the telephone numbers provided were not the direct dial or extension numbers used.
The city responded that a number of employees, such as bus drivers, street department workers, police and fire department personnel do not have individual email addresses or individual phone numbers. It also attested as to the nature of the city's phone system, in which sequential numbers may appear on a caller ID system, but do not identify specific extensions or individuals.
The Office of Open Records agreed that the city produced all the records that were requested, and that the request was granted in full and not partially denied.
The OOR also noted, despite the requester's contention, that the city did not improperly "manufacture" the record it provided (the spreadsheet.)
"... The RTKL does not preclude an agency from compiling information from various sources into one record," the OOR noted. "As stated in Signature Solutions Inc. v. Aston Township, 'mere assembly of a separate record from a series of existing records is not 'creation' of a document.' "
Nolen vs. City of Williamsport -- AP 2009-0182
Denied: An appeal based on the requester's belief that he did not receive a complete response to his request for contact information for Williamsport city employees.
The requester had asked for the computer database or spreadsheet file that contained the full name, title, address, telephone number and extension, fax number, email address and department for every municipal employee. The city responded with a compiled spreadsheet showing that information.
The requester appealed to the Office of Open Records, claiming his request was partially denied in that the telephone numbers provided were not the direct dial or extension numbers used.
The city responded that a number of employees, such as bus drivers, street department workers, police and fire department personnel do not have individual email addresses or individual phone numbers. It also attested as to the nature of the city's phone system, in which sequential numbers may appear on a caller ID system, but do not identify specific extensions or individuals.
The Office of Open Records agreed that the city produced all the records that were requested, and that the request was granted in full and not partially denied.
The OOR also noted, despite the requester's contention, that the city did not improperly "manufacture" the record it provided (the spreadsheet.)
"... The RTKL does not preclude an agency from compiling information from various sources into one record," the OOR noted. "As stated in Signature Solutions Inc. v. Aston Township, 'mere assembly of a separate record from a series of existing records is not 'creation' of a document.' "
Nolen vs. City of Williamsport -- AP 2009-0182