Pennsylvania courts’ broad exemption from the Right-to-Know Law shields judicial records from public scrutiny even when they are in the hands of agencies that are subject to the law, a three-judge panel of the state Commonwealth Court has ruled.
August 18, 2010
By The Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Open-records advocates said enforcement of the 19-month-old law could be hindered by the Aug. 11 decision, which revolves around what Lackawanna County officials have described only as “inappropriate” e-mails that prompted the suspension last summer of the county’s domestic-relations director, Patrick Luongo.
“It’s a broad order,” said Terry Mutchler, director of the state Office of Open Records, which she said planned to appeal to the state Supreme Court.
At issue is whether the e-mails should be released — as the open-records office argues — because they are kept in the county court’s computer system, or withheld because they are records of a judicial agency not covered by the law.
Luongo’s salary is paid by the county, but he is supervised by the judiciary. His department, according to its website, “helps the Court establish and enforce Court Orders for child support and spousal support.” Luongo’s suspension was approved by the administrator of the Lackawanna County Common Pleas Court, county Chief of Staff Maria Elkins said Aug. 13.
The Times-Tribune in Scranton filed a right-to-know request to review the e-mails last fall, the county refused to make them available and, on appeal, the open-records office ordered the county to do so. In response, the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts — the administrative arm of the state court system — pushed the case into Commonwealth Court.
Pennsylvania’s courts have traditionally allowed public access to trials, hearings and court filings while remaining exempt from right-to-know laws. The 2009 law continues that practice but requires the judiciary to disclose financial records.
Judge Dan Pellegrini, author of the panel’s strongly worded decision, came down solidly against disclosing the e-mails.
Pellegrini accused the open-records office of “attempting to expand its jurisdiction” and violating the constitutional separation of powers by ordering the e-mails’ release. He issued an order barring the county or the open-records office from releasing e-mails or other information about court employees.
As director of a county court office mandated by the state Judicial Code, Luongo is also an employee of the state’s unified judicial system and, as such, his records are beyond the jurisdiction of the open-records office, Pellegrini said. He said it is not relevant that he is paid by the county or that the county has access to his e-mails.
“Just because the county provides logistic support to the courts does not mean that every record stored on what the county provides as part of its function to support the court makes it a county record — those records always remain the records of the court,” he said.
“Otherwise, every record ever generated by a county court, including the draft opinions and law clerk memorandums, would be accessible” simply by requesting them through the counties — “an absurd result,” he said.
Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, was the sponsor of the current Right-to-Know Law.
Steve MacNett, the Senate GOP’s chief counsel, said the case underscores the “unique overlaps” of government in Pennsylvania, but that he was not surprised by the ruling.
“It seems to me it’s going to be a hard row to hoe on appeal,” he said.