From The Associated Press just now. I've asked some right-to-know experts in the state to weigh in on this decision and will post their thoughts as soon as I get them. Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Melissa Melewsky said the decision deals more with whether domestic relations employees were judicial employees than it does with e-mails specifically. (See more from Melewsky below, after the text of the story):
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A three-judge panel of the state Commonwealth Court says Pennsylvania courts' broad exemption from the Right-to-Know law shields even records in the hands of agencies subject to the law.
Wednesday's opinion written by Judge Dan Pellegrini stemmed from a 2009 right-to-know request by The Times Tribune of Scranton. It sought "inappropriate" e-mails that prompted the suspension of Lackawanna County domestic relations director Patrick Luongo, who's paid by the county but supervised by the state court system.
The state Office of Open Records ordered the county to turn over the e-mails, but Pellegrini barred any such release. He said the office lacks authority to release them because they are court records.
The office's director, Terry Mutchler, said the ruling may conflict with its responsibility to enforce the Right-to-Know Law.
That's the end of what AP filed earlier today. Melewsky said she was "disappointed but not surprised" at the ruling. The OOR, she said, decided that domestic relations employees were not judicial employees, and so were subject to the right-to-know law. The Commonwealth Court disagreed and noted that only financial records of judicial employees are public.
"The burden falls to the judiciary to provide public accountability" for its employees, Melewsky said.
Melewsky said the ruling doesn't necessarily affect other employees such as county probation officers and children and youth workers, but it could. The Commonwealth Court pointed to a specific law, she said, that defines domestic relations as a subsidiary of judicial agencies. Other offices would need to do the same, she said.
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A three-judge panel of the state Commonwealth Court says Pennsylvania courts' broad exemption from the Right-to-Know law shields even records in the hands of agencies subject to the law.
Wednesday's opinion written by Judge Dan Pellegrini stemmed from a 2009 right-to-know request by The Times Tribune of Scranton. It sought "inappropriate" e-mails that prompted the suspension of Lackawanna County domestic relations director Patrick Luongo, who's paid by the county but supervised by the state court system.
The state Office of Open Records ordered the county to turn over the e-mails, but Pellegrini barred any such release. He said the office lacks authority to release them because they are court records.
The office's director, Terry Mutchler, said the ruling may conflict with its responsibility to enforce the Right-to-Know Law.
That's the end of what AP filed earlier today. Melewsky said she was "disappointed but not surprised" at the ruling. The OOR, she said, decided that domestic relations employees were not judicial employees, and so were subject to the right-to-know law. The Commonwealth Court disagreed and noted that only financial records of judicial employees are public.
"The burden falls to the judiciary to provide public accountability" for its employees, Melewsky said.
Melewsky said the ruling doesn't necessarily affect other employees such as county probation officers and children and youth workers, but it could. The Commonwealth Court pointed to a specific law, she said, that defines domestic relations as a subsidiary of judicial agencies. Other offices would need to do the same, she said.
Leave a comment