Granted: Access to records potentially burdensome to retrieve
Granted in part and denied in
part: A request to Penndel Borough for
records about code enforcement activity and
training received by the borough's code
enforcement officer.
From
the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information
Coalition
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to Penndel Borough for records about code enforcement activity and training received by the borough's code enforcement officer.
The borough had provided a copy of the code enforcement report requested, applications reflecting training seminars and classes taken, and the total paid by the borough for code enforcement services in 2008. The borough stated that it did not have the information about what addresses were inspected and specific amounts paid for those inspections in a single document, but that the information was placed in individual property files, and so denied that part of the request on the ground it was not required to create a record that did not currently exist.
The Office of Open Records rejected the borough's contentions that since the information requested was not on the code enforcement report, it would be impossible for the borough to determine and supply the information requested.
"The borough concedes that it maintains a record of the property address and amount paid to [the code enforcement officer] for each inspection in each specific property file. Thus, retrieval while difficult and potentially burdensome is possible," the OOR noted.
"The borough is correct that the RTKL does not require creation of records, but it does provide for access to information which it concedes is available in each specific property file. While the borough is not required to create a unique list or spreadsheet of addresses and amounts paid to [the code enforcement officer], the borough is required to produce copies of any records that contain the address and payment information that [the requester] requested."
"Additionally, an agency may not deny access to records merely because retrieval requires searching for or extracting those records from a large or voluminous source," the OOR continued. "While retrieval and reproduction of these records may prove time consuming and difficult, the RTKL does not create any exception for such a circumstance."
The OOR did note that the borough sufficiently responded to another part of the request seeking information about the code enforcement officer's training, by providing copies of the applications for the trainings. "To the extent that [the requester[ desires to see the specific contents of the courses, she should make an additional request to the borough for records that relate to the specific contents of each training or course."
Roe vs. Penndel Borough -- AP 2009-0151
Granted in part and denied in part: A request to Penndel Borough for records about code enforcement activity and training received by the borough's code enforcement officer.
The borough had provided a copy of the code enforcement report requested, applications reflecting training seminars and classes taken, and the total paid by the borough for code enforcement services in 2008. The borough stated that it did not have the information about what addresses were inspected and specific amounts paid for those inspections in a single document, but that the information was placed in individual property files, and so denied that part of the request on the ground it was not required to create a record that did not currently exist.
The Office of Open Records rejected the borough's contentions that since the information requested was not on the code enforcement report, it would be impossible for the borough to determine and supply the information requested.
"The borough concedes that it maintains a record of the property address and amount paid to [the code enforcement officer] for each inspection in each specific property file. Thus, retrieval while difficult and potentially burdensome is possible," the OOR noted.
"The borough is correct that the RTKL does not require creation of records, but it does provide for access to information which it concedes is available in each specific property file. While the borough is not required to create a unique list or spreadsheet of addresses and amounts paid to [the code enforcement officer], the borough is required to produce copies of any records that contain the address and payment information that [the requester] requested."
"Additionally, an agency may not deny access to records merely because retrieval requires searching for or extracting those records from a large or voluminous source," the OOR continued. "While retrieval and reproduction of these records may prove time consuming and difficult, the RTKL does not create any exception for such a circumstance."
The OOR did note that the borough sufficiently responded to another part of the request seeking information about the code enforcement officer's training, by providing copies of the applications for the trainings. "To the extent that [the requester[ desires to see the specific contents of the courses, she should make an additional request to the borough for records that relate to the specific contents of each training or course."
Roe vs. Penndel Borough -- AP 2009-0151