Granted: Records that township refused to swear do not exist
May 08, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Denied
| Newtown
Twp | Agency
non-compliance | Record
doesn't exist
Granted in part and denied in
part: A request to Newtown Township
seeking copies of sewage enforcement records and
municipal authority payments. The Office of Open
Records directed the township to either provide
the records requested or provide a sworn
statement that they do not exist, which it had
already refused to do.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to Newtown Township seeking copies of sewage enforcement records and municipal authority payments. The Office of Open Records directed the township to either provide the records requested or provide a sworn statement that they do not exist, which it had already refused to do.
The requester had sought sewage enforcement officer records of complaints and inspections from 2004 through 2008, as well as records showing certain municipal authority payments regarding a certain sewer project for years 2005 through 2009.
Some records were provided by the township, but the requester did not receive access to the sewage enforcement records for 2006 or any of the municipal authority records.
Upon inquiry from the Office of Open Records, the township said the 2006 sewage records did not exist, but refused to provide a sworn affirmation to that effect. The township's open records officer also informed the OOR that he was not the open records officer for the municipal authority.
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the township disregarded Right to Know Law requirements by failing to submit a proper written denial, failing to support its denial with legal citation, and failing to satisfy its burden of proving that the requested information was not public under one of the exemptions in the law. It also failed to provide appeal instructions to the requester.
The OOR noted that while the RTKL says a record in the possession of a local agency is presumed to be a public record, it also does not require an agency to create a record which does not exist.
But it said that while the township communicated verbally with the OOR that the 2006 records do not exist, it would not submit a sworn affidavit, "a fact the OOR finds troubling."
"The township's refusal to submit an attestation raises legitimate doubts about the veracity of its claims that the records don't exist," the OOR wrote. "Further, while the OOR recognizes that the municipal authority might well be a separate local agency, the township's delay in raising this defect ... with the requester and this agency is also suspect.
"Finally, the township's delay at each stage of this RTKL process appears unreasonable and further diminishes the township's credibility."
The OOR went on to remind the township and all other agencies that compliance with the RTKL "is not optional, and that there are serious consequences for failure to do so."
The OOR directed the township to either release the records requested or provide a sworn affidavit that the 2006 sewage enforcement records do not exist and that the township's open records officer is not the open records officer for the municipal authority.
Wilson vs. Newtown Township -- AP 2009-0194
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to Newtown Township seeking copies of sewage enforcement records and municipal authority payments. The Office of Open Records directed the township to either provide the records requested or provide a sworn statement that they do not exist, which it had already refused to do.
The requester had sought sewage enforcement officer records of complaints and inspections from 2004 through 2008, as well as records showing certain municipal authority payments regarding a certain sewer project for years 2005 through 2009.
Some records were provided by the township, but the requester did not receive access to the sewage enforcement records for 2006 or any of the municipal authority records.
Upon inquiry from the Office of Open Records, the township said the 2006 sewage records did not exist, but refused to provide a sworn affirmation to that effect. The township's open records officer also informed the OOR that he was not the open records officer for the municipal authority.
In its ruling, the OOR noted that the township disregarded Right to Know Law requirements by failing to submit a proper written denial, failing to support its denial with legal citation, and failing to satisfy its burden of proving that the requested information was not public under one of the exemptions in the law. It also failed to provide appeal instructions to the requester.
The OOR noted that while the RTKL says a record in the possession of a local agency is presumed to be a public record, it also does not require an agency to create a record which does not exist.
But it said that while the township communicated verbally with the OOR that the 2006 records do not exist, it would not submit a sworn affidavit, "a fact the OOR finds troubling."
"The township's refusal to submit an attestation raises legitimate doubts about the veracity of its claims that the records don't exist," the OOR wrote. "Further, while the OOR recognizes that the municipal authority might well be a separate local agency, the township's delay in raising this defect ... with the requester and this agency is also suspect.
"Finally, the township's delay at each stage of this RTKL process appears unreasonable and further diminishes the township's credibility."
The OOR went on to remind the township and all other agencies that compliance with the RTKL "is not optional, and that there are serious consequences for failure to do so."
The OOR directed the township to either release the records requested or provide a sworn affidavit that the 2006 sewage enforcement records do not exist and that the township's open records officer is not the open records officer for the municipal authority.
Wilson vs. Newtown Township -- AP 2009-0194