Granted: Payroll records with home addresses not redacted
April 14, 2009 Filed in: Granted
| Indiana
University | Payroll
| Third-party
contractors | Personal
security | Personal
information | Addressess
| Agency
non-compliance
Granted: A request to Indiana
University of Pennsylvania for copies of payroll
records of a third-party contractor, including
home addresses.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted: A request to Indiana University of Pennsylvania for copies of payroll records of a third-party contractor, including home addresses.
IUP had provided the records with Social Security numbers and home addresses redacted, without providing any legal or factual basis for the redactions, and also did not provide any appeal information.
In its response, the Office of Open Records cited its previous determinations in two similar appeals: Green vs. Bethlehem Area School District and Green v. Pocono Mountain School District.
IUP replied by saying the information does not constitute a record under the Right to Know Law, that the information is exempt because of the personal identification information and personal security provisions, and also cited the inherent constitutional right to privacy.
The OOR found that IUP properly redacted the Social Security numbers, citing the personal identification information exemption.
But it rejected IUP's argument that because the home addresses were not required to part of the record, that meant they could not be considered public record.
It also rejected the university's use of the "personal security" exemption. "IUP references a number of general scenarios where harm could occur, including but not limited to situations involving stalking and/or protection from abuse orders," the OOR noted. "However, IUP does not claim that any such situations apply to any individuals in this case."
It noted that IUP could have confirmed with each individual named in the payroll whether the release of their home address would result in any substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm and/or personal security, which is the standard set by this provision. "While this may result in additional time, effort and expense for a government agency, the OOR shares IUP's view that the safety of an individual is vitally important. Here, the OOR finds that IUP's use of general hypothetical situations does not satisfy its burden under the RTKL."
The OOR directed IUP to provide copies of the records, with only the Social Security numbers redacted, within 30 days "to the extent that it is still unaware of any threats to any specific individual's safety."
Pry vs. Indiana University of Pennsyivania -- PA 2009-0119
Granted: A request to Indiana University of Pennsylvania for copies of payroll records of a third-party contractor, including home addresses.
IUP had provided the records with Social Security numbers and home addresses redacted, without providing any legal or factual basis for the redactions, and also did not provide any appeal information.
In its response, the Office of Open Records cited its previous determinations in two similar appeals: Green vs. Bethlehem Area School District and Green v. Pocono Mountain School District.
IUP replied by saying the information does not constitute a record under the Right to Know Law, that the information is exempt because of the personal identification information and personal security provisions, and also cited the inherent constitutional right to privacy.
The OOR found that IUP properly redacted the Social Security numbers, citing the personal identification information exemption.
But it rejected IUP's argument that because the home addresses were not required to part of the record, that meant they could not be considered public record.
It also rejected the university's use of the "personal security" exemption. "IUP references a number of general scenarios where harm could occur, including but not limited to situations involving stalking and/or protection from abuse orders," the OOR noted. "However, IUP does not claim that any such situations apply to any individuals in this case."
It noted that IUP could have confirmed with each individual named in the payroll whether the release of their home address would result in any substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm and/or personal security, which is the standard set by this provision. "While this may result in additional time, effort and expense for a government agency, the OOR shares IUP's view that the safety of an individual is vitally important. Here, the OOR finds that IUP's use of general hypothetical situations does not satisfy its burden under the RTKL."
The OOR directed IUP to provide copies of the records, with only the Social Security numbers redacted, within 30 days "to the extent that it is still unaware of any threats to any specific individual's safety."
Pry vs. Indiana University of Pennsyivania -- PA 2009-0119