In an era where government transparency is increasingly critical to public trust, municipalities in Pennsylvania face growing pressure to comply with the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). However, the law’s complexities often leave local governments grappling with challenges in interpretation and compliance. This article addresses common challenges municipalities face, the potential ramifications of failing to comply, and strategies for staying ahead of issues. Despite the nuances of exemptions, response deadlines, and handling complex or sensitive requests, municipal leaders can ensure that they remain in compliance by understanding the intricacies of the law.

Under the law, municipal governments are required to provide access to public records, which are broadly defined to include any document or communication created or received by an agency in the course of conducting public business, though not all records are open to the public. Certain records are explicitly exempt under the law, including:

• Personal information (such as medical records or personnel files)
• Law enforcement records that may interfere with criminal investigations
• Records protected by attorney-client privilege
• Records that would violate an individual’s constitutional rights (such as the right to privacy)

One of the most common challenges municipalities face is determining records that are truly exempt and which can be released with proper redactions. When in doubt, consult legal counsel to ensure compliance without overreaching. For example, emails between municipal staff discussing public business are typically considered public records. However, communications that discuss personal matters or privileged legal advice may not be accessible. Municipal leaders should be familiar with these nuances to avoid potential violations of the RTKL.

Additionally, when a municipality provides a partial response to a request, it is also considered a partial denial. This distinction is crucial and should not be overlooked. A partial denial means that the requestor’s full access to records has been withheld, and the municipality must provide a clear justification for why certain portions of the request could not be fulfilled. This justification must be based on specific legal exemptions, such as confidentiality or privacy concerns, that prevent full disclosure. Failing to properly address the partial denial reasoning can lead to unnecessary confusion and potential legal challenges. Further, the municipality is required to inform the requestor of the right to submit an appeal to the Office of Open Records (OOR). Municipalities should be prepared for the possibility of appeals and familiarize themselves with the OOR’s process to ensure a smooth and informed response.

Failure to comply with Pennsylvania’s RTKL, including failing to address appeals properly, can lead to serious legal and financial consequences for municipalities. The Office of Open Records (OOR) can issue binding decisions against non-complying agencies, which may result in the municipality being ordered to release the requested records. In addition to administrative decisions, financial penalties can be levied, including reimbursement of the requestor’s legal fees, if they successfully challenge a denial. These fines are designed to incentivize compliance and deter negligence in handling public records requests.

By taking a proactive approach, municipalities can protect themselves and maintain the public trust, fostering an environment where transparency and accountability are prioritized. This may include electing to adopt proactive disclosure strategies, such as posting commonly requested documents online. Another option available is to develop a standard response cover letter to clearly outline the rationale for any denials or partial responses. Importantly, the cover letter should also include the necessary information about the appeal process, ensuring that requestors understand their rights and how to challenge any denials if they feel the response is insufficient.

Education is another key element in ensuring compliance with the RTKL. Municipal staff, from front-line employees to leadership, should be trained regularly on the legal requirements of the law, best practices for handling public records requests, and how to use the record-keeping system effectively. Engaging with local media and the public is also essential in fostering positive relationships. By establishing clear communication channels and providing timely updates on how the municipality is handling public records, local authorities can reduce misunderstandings and potential conflicts.

As municipalities navigate the complexities of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), it is essential to adopt a proactive approach to compliance. By identifying common challenges, understanding the potential consequences of non-compliance, and implementing effective strategies, municipal leaders can avoid legal pitfalls and strengthen public trust. With a clear understanding of how to properly implement RTKL policies and procedures, municipalities can maintain transparency while safeguarding their legal obligations.

Courtney M. Buechler

Attorney

Courtney Buechler is a member of CGA Law Firm, contributing to the Family Law, Municipal Law, Estate Planning, and Real Estate practice groups. After graduating from Pennsylvania State Dickinson Law, Courtney is now licensed in Pennsylvania and Maryland. She leverages her extensive experience and unique perspective to guide clients through complex legal landscapes.

Learn more about Courtney here.