Are public libraries subject to the Right-to-Know Law? Definitely maybe.
Are public libraries subject to the Right-to-Know Law? Definitely maybe.
The Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”) is a powerful tool that provides citizens with the right of access to public records. It is designed to promote transparency and accountability in government. However, the application of this law to various entities, including public libraries, can sometimes be complex and nuanced. This blog post aims to analyze whether public libraries may be subject to the Pennsylvania RTKL in light of the case Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co., 299 A.3d 196 (Pa. Commw. 2023).
The Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law
The RTKL affords the public with access to records of state and local governments, providing Pennsylvanians with the right to request and receive records showing precisely what the government is doing. The law contains strict deadlines for responses and numerous exemptions. All “records” (as defined by the RTKL) within Pennsylvania are presumptively subject to public access.
One of the threshold questions, however, is what constitutes a local agency?
Volunteer fire companies may be subject to the disclosure requirements of the RTKL - Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co.
In case of Pysher v. Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Co., the Court of Common Pleas of Lycoming County affirmed a Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (“OOR”) and ordered the Clinton Township Volunteer Fire Company to turn over documents responsive to a RTKL request made by a requester. The key issue was whether the Fire Company was a “local agency” subject to the RTKL. The court found that the Fire Company was indeed a local agency23. However, on appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the Commonwealth Court found the record lacked facts necessary for a meaningful review of the nature of the relationship between the Fire Company and Clinton Township and remanded the case for further development of the factual record.
Following the remand, the trial court engaged in further factfinding and found that the Fire Company was a local agency, and, on appeal, the Commonwealth Court agreed. Specifically, the Commonwealth Court found that “the nature of the Fire Company’s functions” was a “‘strong factor in favor of finding that’” the Fire Company is a local agency because providing fire and emergency services is an essential function of government.
The Court also looked the level of government control over the Fire Company, and found that, while a municipality did not exercise “active control” over the Fire Company, the ability to “exercise passive or political control and oversight over” the Fire Company weighed in favor of finding the Fire Company to be a local agency.
Finally, the Court found that, because more than 50% of the Fire Company’s funding comes from public sources and that one municipality had exercised its authority to audit the Fire Company in the past. As a result, the Court found that this factor also weighed in favor of finding the Fire Company is an agency subject to the open records requirements of the Right-to-Know Law.
Implications for Public Libraries
While the Pysher case is unreported – meaning that it is not controlling on any court outside of the parties in that case – it is still considered “persuasive,” meaning that it could be used to influence cases involving other agencies, such as public libraries.
If a public library is considered a “local agency” under the RTKL, it would be subject to the law’s provisions. This would mean that the public could request and receive records from the library, subject to certain exemptions.
However, whether a public library qualifies as a “local agency” may depend on the specific facts and circumstances, including the nature of the relationship between the library and the local government. As the Pysher case demonstrates, this can be a complex and fact-intensive inquiry that looks to (1) the nature of the entity’s functions; (2) the degree of governmental control; and (3) the degree of financial control.
In conclusion, while the Pysher case does not directly address the issue of public libraries and the RTKL, it provides valuable insights into how courts may approach the question. It underscores the importance of a detailed factual analysis in determining whether an entity like a public library is subject to the RTKL. As always, specific legal questions should be addressed with the assistance of legal counsel, including the attorneys at Schnee Legal Services, LLC.
This blog post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult with a qualified attorney for legal advice.
