Aug 26, 2022 3 min read

In the wake of a resolution recently approved in Charleroi, the state Office of Open Records (OOR) offered an opinion that governmental agencies cannot limit the number of Right-to-Know requests that can be made.

“Section 1308 (of the Right-to-Know Law) prohibits agencies from enacting policies limiting the number of records requested as well as the number of record requests,” wrote Elizabeth Wagenseller, executive director of the Office of Open Records. “Because of the clear statutory prohibition against such a policy, it is unnecessary to evaluate any constitutional concerns.”

In July, Charleroi council approved a resolution to limit excessive right-to-know requests.

At the time, borough Manager Matt Staniszewski said the resolution was derived from Senate Bills 552 and 312. The former bill addresses excessive requests to municipalities while the latter addresses charging additional fees for requests.

“We respect their comments and opinions,” Stansizewski said Thursday. “First and foremost, we are looking to provide transparency to each and every resident and non-resident. We have not found too many issues at this point.”

Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law entitles the public to obtain most records from public agencies in the state within five days of a request. Unless otherwise provided by law, a public record, legislative record or financial record must be accessible for inspection and duplication.

Section 506 of the Right-to-Know Law does allow an agency to deny repeated requests for the same records by the same person.

Earlier this month, Melissa Melewsky, legal counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, sought an opinion from the Office of Open Records as a result of agencies enacting or planning to enact policies limiting the number of right-to-know requests that can be filed.

When contacted Thursday, Melewsky said it was important to pursue the advisory opinion to deter such policies from popping up across the Commonwealth. She added the Office of Open Records has an opinion on record if an appeal would come before them from someone being denied information.

“When a case does pop up, the Office of Open Records is in a good position to say, ‘We’ve already decided this issue, here’s our advisory position,'” she said. “It’s extremely problematic if we allow the government to say, ‘Sure, we’ll give you information when we feel like it.'”

Melewsky posed two questions to the OOR:

• Can an agency enact a policy that limits the number of Right-to-Know Law requests that can be filed with an agency?
• Does a local policy limiting the number of Right-to-Know Law requests that can be filed violate Section 1308 of the statute?

Wagenseller wrote the questions are interrelated and can be answered together.

She said Section 1308 of the Right-to-Know Law prohibits agencies from adopting policy or regulation that includes a limitation on the number of records that may be requested or made available for inspection or duplication.

“The Commonwealth Court has recognized that this prohibition means that an agency is not excused from its obligation(s) under the Right-to-Know Law just because a request is for a large number of documents,” Wagenseller wrote.

She also said the OOR notes that any agency that promotes a policy in violation of Section 1308 of the Right-to-Know Law may be subject to court costs, attorney fees and civil penalties.

When exploring ways to limit right-to-know requests in June, Staniszewski said the borough already had received more right-to-know requests for the year than it typically receives in a calendar year.

“They have slowly calmed down a little bit,” he said Thursday.