<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" 
    xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
    xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
    xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
    xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
	<channel>
<title>PaFOIC RTK</title><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/index.html</link><description>Right to Know Request Determinations</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><dc:rights>Copyright 2009 Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition</dc:rights><dc:date>2010-01-12T17:30:50-05:00</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.realmacsoftware.com/" />
<admin:errorReportsTo rdf:resource="mailto:info@openrecordspa.org" /><sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:22:18 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Denied: Appeal as moot after Revenue releases records</title><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><dc:subject>Home</dc:subject><dc:date>2010-01-12T17:30:50-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/082637af1aba8624f8f89840d414c82a-6.html#unique-entry-id-6</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/082637af1aba8624f8f89840d414c82a-6.html#unique-entry-id-6</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Denied: An appeal on a request to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue for certain lottery sales data, after the department provided documents to resolve the appeal, but the requester failed to respond to the Office of Open Records, which was trying to determine if the appeal had been rendered moot.


After filing his initial appeal, the requester notified the OOR that the parties were working together to resolve the appeal.   The Department of Revenue eventually affirmed that it had provided the requester with an information he sought, and filed a motion to dismiss, maintaining that the appeal should be dismissed as moot.


Despite numerous attempts, the OOR was unable to confirm with the requester that his request had been satisfied, and therefore denied the appeal without prejudice, meaning the requester can file a second request with the department if his initial request has not been met.


...Department of Revenue AP 2009-0905]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Denied: Appeal of Allentown tax record redactions</title><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><category>Denied</category><category>Allentown</category><category>Media requests</category><category>Redaction</category><category>LTEA</category><category>Non-criminal investigations</category><dc:date>2010-01-12T17:13:18-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/7a21666d2ef587744480494599b7a3da-5.html#unique-entry-id-5</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/7a21666d2ef587744480494599b7a3da-5.html#unique-entry-id-5</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The city had partially denied the initial request by making records available but redacting information it said it could withhold under the Local Tax Enabling Act and the Right to Know Law provision protecting records pertaining to complaints or non-criminal investigations.


...-- Information related to investigation of citizen complaints is exempt from disclosure by the Right to Know Law, which protects records relating to a noncriminal investigation, including "complaints submitted to an agency" and "investigative materials, notes, correspondence and reports."


..."The requester contends that the city did not adequately justify its redactions from the 41 pages because the city did not specify which exception applied to which correspondence," the OOR wrote. 

...The RTKL does not require an agency to provide a &ldquo;redaction log&rdquo; to a requester in order to satisfy its obligations for a proper denial under Section 903."


..."The city cited the specific reasons for the redactions, and cited the appropriate legal exemptions by citing a statute, including full legal citation, and an exception under the RTKL by name and legal citation," the OOR wrote. ]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Granted: Copy of Mt. Carmel Twp. ordinance</title><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><category>Granted</category><category>Mt Carmel Twp</category><category>Agency non-compliance</category><dc:date>2010-01-12T17:09:02-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/897f9924bac4e2fe5c6d26e85b78c540-4.html#unique-entry-id-4</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/897f9924bac4e2fe5c6d26e85b78c540-4.html#unique-entry-id-4</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[The township responded to the initial request by invoking the 30-day extension to reply, and advised that a response would be provided by Dec. ...  The requester filed an appeal to the Office of Open Records on Dec. 14, when he had not yet received a response from the township. 


The township did not provide grounds for withholding the records in response to correspondence from the OOR.


"There is no question that a final ordinance is a public record," the OOR wrote in its determination.


"The township presented no evidence that the record requested does not exist, and supplied no grounds for withholding it and therefore must disclose it, or alternatively provide an affidavit made under penalty of perjury by someone with personal knowledge that no such ordinance exists."
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Granted: Mt. Carmel Twp. attorney&#x27;s contract</title><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><category>Granted</category><category>Mt Carmel Twp</category><category>Solicitor fees</category><category>Agency non-compliance</category><dc:date>2010-01-12T17:01:38-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/a36fa3ad5f073b2ffb3700744a955d3a-3.html#unique-entry-id-3</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/a36fa3ad5f073b2ffb3700744a955d3a-3.html#unique-entry-id-3</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Granted: A request to Mount Carmel Township for its contract with legal counsel, including hourly rate and explanation of fees, which the township failed to respond to.


The township responded to the initial request by invoking the 30-day extension to reply, and advised that a response would be provided by Dec. ...  The requester filed an appeal to the Office of Open Records on Dec. 14, when he had not yet received a response from the township. 


The township did not provide grounds for withholding the records in response to correspondence from the OOR.


...As the township failed to overcome the presumption of openness because it did not submit evidence to justify withholding the information, it must disclose the records."
]]></content:encoded></item><item><title>Granted: Mt. Carmel Twp. minutes and tapes</title><dc:creator>info@openrecordspa.org</dc:creator><category>Granted</category><category>Mt Carmel Twp</category><category>Agency non-compliance</category><category>Tapes of meetings</category><dc:date>2010-01-12T16:32:44-05:00</dc:date><link>http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/143f3740a2147b0a7a00cd52badf92df-2.html#unique-entry-id-2</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.openrecordspa.org/determinations_files/143f3740a2147b0a7a00cd52badf92df-2.html#unique-entry-id-2</guid><content:encoded><![CDATA[Granted: A request to Mount Carmel Township for minutes, meeting tapes and treasurer's reports, which the township failed to respond to.


The requester asked for copies of township meeting minutes, treasurer's reports and copies of township meeting tapes for the months of July, August and September 2009.


The township responded by invoking the 30-day extension to reply, and advised that a response would be provided by Dec. ...  The requester filed an appeal to the Office of Open Records on Dec. 14, when he had not yet received a response from the township. 


...The OOR, in its responses, noted that the records requested have been determined to be public records, citing three previous cases: Demski v. ]]></content:encoded></item></channel>
</rss>