Garbage Collection Route Maps Are Public: OOR Rejects Unproven Infrastructure Security Claim

Commonwealth Court Vacates OOR Denial and Remands Wellpath Liability-Insurance Request for Contract Review Under RTKL Section 506(d)

Commonwealth Court on interview rankings and a redacted security report, plus OOR rulings on RFP evaluation forms, PTO emails, and a fee-schedule comment window. By J. Chadwick Schnee, Esq., Schnee Legal Services, LLC | Monday, November 9, 2026 | Issue #4 Covering October 29 to November 5, 2026 Clock check Scope first, deadline second. Every Right-to-Know request runs on a clock, and this week the Commonwealth Court reminded agencies that exemptions have clocks of their own: they must fit the record in hand. In Shepherd (story 1), a post-interview ranking of candidates was not a “civil service or similar test,” so the ranking had to come out. In Osborne (story 2), security exemptions still apply, but only to the parts of a consultant’s report that actually create a safety risk. Meanwhile, the Office of Open Records (OOR) is running a different clock for the public: comments on its 2026 fee schedule are due by close of business on November 20 (story 5). Scope first, deadline second. This week’s five stories 1. Commonwealth Court: A job interview ranking is not a “similar test” under the civil service exemption Interviews are not exams. In Pennsylvania Office of the Governor v. Shepherd and Broad and Liberty, Inc., No. 1500 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Nov. 3, 2026), the Court affirmed an OOR Remand Determination that ordered the Governor’s Office to provide remaining records from a 2023 Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request. On remand, the Governor argued that three documents ranking senior-level candidates after interviews were exempt as “[t]he result of a civil service or similar test” under Section 708(b)(7)(iii). Judge Fizzano Cannon disagreed. A “similar test,” the Court held, must be “strictly comparable” to a civil service exam: a standardized, scored examination of qualifications and aptitude. By the Office’s own description, candidates were considered through interviews, reference checks and other means. The Court’s in camera review found a ranked list of two candidates with no test scores. Judge Dumas concurred, while noting broader policy concerns about personnel records. This is a reported opinion. More in our post on Shepherd and the similar-test exemption . Source: Commonwealth Court opinion (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Interviews and preference rankings are not civil service exams. An exemption claim under Section 708(b)(7)(iii) needs a standardized, scored test, not a hiring conversation. 2. Commonwealth Court (unreported): Security consultant report after the Governor’s Residence arson review must be disclosed with redactions Redact the risk, release the rest. In Osborne and Commonwealth Foundation v. Office of the Governor, No. 1580 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Nov. 4, 2026), requesters sought the independent security review report prepared by former PSP Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller after the April 2025 arson attack at the Governor’s Residence, plus related communications. The OOR denied the appeal. The Commonwealth Court reversed. It held the OOR abused its discretion by failing to enforce its own in camera order after the Office refused to produce the Report for review, then deciding the appeal without seeing the records. On its own review, the Court directed disclosure within 14 days of the related email and a redacted copy of the Report. Security exemptions under Sections 708(b)(1)(ii), (2) and (3) protect portions that create a real safety risk, including detailed assessment material, but introductory text, publicly available facility descriptions and publicly available crime data did not qualify. This is an unreported memorandum opinion: not binding precedent, citable for its persuasive value only. See our post on Osborne and security-report redactions . Source: Commonwealth Court memorandum opinion (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Security exemptions are real, but they are not a blanket. When an agency refuses in camera review, expect a court to look for itself and order redacted release of what does not create a safety risk. 3. OOR: Corrections must release blank RFP evaluation forms after in camera review; broad “communications” request fails specificity Blank forms are not deliberations. In Belkin v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-2345 (consolidated with AP 2026-2346) (Final Determination issued and mailed Oct. 30, 2026), the requester sought records about an inmate-communications RFP, including drafting and evaluation materials, plus years of “communications” with named people and vendors. After reviewing hundreds of files in camera, Deputy Chief Counsel Jordan C. Davis granted the appeal in part. Blank proposal evaluation worksheets, review rules and evaluator conflict-of-interest forms were not deliberations and must be provided. Undifferentiated copies of the RFP and attachments also had to be released where the Department did not show they were drafts used in a deliberative process. Internal discussions, meeting notes, research materials and draft-contract sign-offs stayed exempt under Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A). The second request, seeking years of “communications” related to inmate communication services or charitable contributions, was insufficiently specific under Section 703. More in our post on Belkin and procurement deliberations . Source: OOR Final Determination (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: A deliberation log that repeats the statute for every file rarely survives in camera review. Blank forms are not deliberations, and a years-long “communications” ask still needs a clear subject, scope and timeframe. 4. OOR: School district must review and release PTO emails on its domain that document district activity Domain-hosted mail can be agency records. In DelVecchio v. Valley Grove School District, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-3592 (Final Determination issued and mailed Nov. 2, 2026), the requester sought all emails in the Valley Grove Elementary PTO account (PTO@staff.VGSD.org) from June 1, 2025 through August 10, 2026. The District denied the request as overbroad after locating more than 1,800 emails, and argued the PTO is a separate entity with its own EIN and limited School Code oversight. Appeals Officer Damian J. DeStefano granted the appeal in part. Because the District had already found the emails in an identified account over a defined period, the specificity defense failed. Emails that document a District transaction or activity are District records under Section 102; purely personal emails are not. The District must review each message and produce the responsive ones on a rolling schedule every thirty days over ninety days, with personal identifiers redacted under Section 708(b)(6) where appropriate. See our post on DelVecchio and PTO domain emails . Source: OOR Final Determination (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Hosting an outside group’s email on an agency domain can bring agency-related messages into the RTKL. Locating thousands of emails in one account undercuts a claim that the request was too vague to search. 5. OOR opens 2026 fee-schedule review: comments due November 20 Comments close November 20. Under Section 1310 of the RTKL, the OOR is conducting its 2026 biannual review of its fee schedule. Public comments opened November 2 and run through close of business on November 20, 2026. Comments should identify specific concerns with the current schedule and explain any changes sought. The review is limited to the fee schedule; comments on other topics will not be considered. Send comments by email to FeeReviewOOR@pa.gov and include your name and, if applicable, your agency or organization. Our post on the 2026 fee-schedule comment window has the details. Source: OOR alert · Watch the Short Key takeaway: The comment window is short and narrow. Stick to the fee schedule, be specific, and get comments in by close of business November 20. Practical tip: Your appeal receipt date still controls, even if assignment is slow Receipt date still controls." If you filed an appeal through the OOR’s E-File portal and have the confirmation email, that receipt date is what matters. The OOR has advised that high volume may delay assignment to an Appeals Officer, but the delay does not change the receipt date. Wait three business days after the confirmation before contacting the OOR. Keep the confirmation email with your file. Open Docket tracks business-day deadlines on open requests; for appeals, the OOR’s own confirmation is the clock that counts. See the OOR assignment-delay alert . 

PA Open Government Weekly: Issue #3 Commonwealth Court on big requests and a prison health contractor’s insurance, plus OOR rulings on discipline counts, a draft AI policy and election return sheets. J. Chadwick Schnee Nov 02, 2026 Covering October 22 to 28, 2026 Clock check Scope first, deadline second. Every Right-to-Know request runs on a clock, and this week’s lead case shows what happens when that clock meets a large request. In Commonwealth Charter Academy (story 1), the school’s witness testified that the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) “gives only a 5-day response window followed by a one-time 30-day extension.” The Commonwealth Court agreed that volume is relevant but held that it is not, by itself, a reason to deny a request that is otherwise specific. Another clock is now running too: Act 103 of 2026 (SB 1150), the Sunshine Act agenda amendment signed October 22, takes effect in 60 days. For agencies and requesters alike, the time to sort out scope is at the start, not at the deadline. This week’s five stories 1. Commonwealth Court (unreported): Large charter school requests for RFPs, invoices and contracts were specific enough Large is not the same as vague. In Commonwealth Charter Academy Charter School v. Epstein, Nos. 641-642 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Oct. 23, 2026), the Court affirmed two Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas orders requiring the statewide cyber charter school to produce requests for proposals (RFPs), invoices and payment records in nine service areas for 2021 through 2024, legal services contracts and invoices for fiscal years 2020 through 2024, and insurance contracts for 2021 through 2024. Applying the three-part test of subject matter, scope and timeframe, Judge Fizzano Cannon wrote that nine service areas “is not a short list” but each was well defined, the requests named specific types of documents, and four years was reasonable. The volume of a request “is certainly relevant” but “not dispositive,” and an agency’s decentralized recordkeeping is not held against the requester. The Court declined to adopt “a nebulous approach that would require our courts to tally up requests” and weigh them against an agency’s resources. It noted that privileged content in the legal records stays protected, and held the requesters waived their attorneys’ fees claim by not raising it in the trial court. Judge McCullough dissented. This is an unreported memorandum opinion: not binding precedent, citable for its persuasive value only. More in our post on CCA v. Epstein and the specificity test . Source: Commonwealth Court memorandum opinion (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Each request is judged on its own. A request that names the activity, the document types and a defined period can be specific even when it is large, and burden alone does not make it overbroad. 2. Commonwealth Court (unreported): OOR must review the contract before ruling on a prison health contractor’s insurance policies Read the contract first. In Pew v. Department of Corrections and Wellpath, LLC, No. 986 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. filed Oct. 27, 2026), an inmate requester sought the liability insurance policies that Wellpath, the Department’s healthcare contractor, maintains for its providers. The Office of Open Records (OOR) denied the appeal in July 2025, finding the Department did not have the policies and Wellpath showed they did not sufficiently relate to the healthcare it provides to inmates. The Court treated the policies as “records,” since Wellpath retains them under the MCARE Act and inmate healthcare is an activity of the Department. But whether they “directly relate” to that governmental function under Section 506(d)(1) requires a look at the contract, and no one had put the contract in the record. The Court vacated and remanded for a new final determination and, following Baron, directed Wellpath to supplement the record with the relevant contracts. It agreed with the OOR that the policies are not “financial records,” because the Department does not pay the premiums. Unreported memorandum opinion: citable for persuasive value only. See our post on Pew and contractor records under Section 506(d) . Source: Commonwealth Court memorandum opinion (PDF) Key takeaway: When a request reaches a contractor’s records, the contract is the key evidence. Expect the OOR to need it before deciding whether a record directly relates to the government work. 3. OOR: State Police may not withhold aggregate discipline counts as investigative or personnel records Counts, not case files. In Bruce v. Pennsylvania State Police, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-4263 (Final Determination issued Oct. 26, 2026), the requester sought yearly aggregate complaint and discipline statistics for personnel at Troop H, Gettysburg Station, from January 1, 2016 through August 22, 2026. PSP produced a spreadsheet for Items 1 through 7, and the OOR found its search adequate. PSP denied Item 8, the number of complaints resulting in corrective or disciplinary action, under the noncriminal investigation and personnel exemptions. The OOR disagreed: the request expressly did not seek names, narratives or investigative files, and a count would not disclose personal information about an individual employee or amount to an investigative report. Because PSP is not required to create a record, it must provide Item 8 records within 30 days to the extent they exist, or attest that they do not. More in our post on Bruce v. PSP and discipline statistics . Source: OOR Final Determination (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Exemptions attach to the record requested. A request for counts is not a request for the underlying files, but no agency has to build a statistic it does not keep. 4. OOR: Harrisburg may withhold its draft AI policy, but not development materials it did not show were internal The draft is covered; the papers around it need proof. In Rihl and PennLive v. Harrisburg City, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-4238 (Final Determination issued Oct. 28, 2026), the City withheld its draft artificial intelligence policy and related development materials. The OOR held the draft policy exempt under Section 708(b)(9), which covers drafts of a statement of policy, after the City clarified at the OOR’s request that it was relying on that exemption. The development materials were another matter. The predecisional deliberation exemption requires proof that records are internal, and the City’s evidence was “silent regarding the internal nature of the documents.” Its attestations were also silent on who created the records, so the notes and working papers exemption failed too. The City’s production of its CrowdStrike contract and pricing proposal mooted Item 1, and the City must provide the Item 4 records within 30 days. See our post on Rihl and the draft AI policy . Source: OOR Final Determination (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: A draft policy can be protected, but the papers around it need their own proof. Attestations should say who created the records and whether anyone outside the agency saw them. 5. OOR: After Honey, election return sheets in county emails must be sought under the Election Code Some election records have their own door. In Thomas v. Delaware County, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-3097 (Final Determination issued Oct. 22, 2026), the requester sought 2024 emails containing terms such as “Hand count” and “Judge of elections” from five election officials’ accounts. The request was deemed denied, and the County produced records during the appeal along with an exemption log. The OOR held that the 2024 return sheets found in the emails are board of elections records covered by Section 2648 of the Election Code and, under Honey v. Lycoming County Offices of Voter Services, 355 A.3d 801 (Pa. 2026), cannot be obtained through the RTKL. That part of the appeal was dismissed without prejudice to seeking the records under the Election Code. The remaining withheld emails were protected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine. More in our post on Thomas and Honey’s reach . Source: OOR Final Determination (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: An election request may split in two. Correspondence stays under the RTKL, while returns and similar board of elections records may have to be sought under the Election Code. Legislative watch: HB 2771 heads to Senate Transportation In committee, and on the calendar. House Bill 2771, Rep. Jennifer O’Mara’s automated license plate reader bill, passed the House 190-13 on October 19 and was referred to the Senate Transportation Committee on October 26. As passed by the House, it would bar RTKL access to captured plate data while opening system audit, use and access logs, subject to redaction. Our post on HB 2771 and ALPR audit logs walks through the text. Meanwhile, Act 103 of 2026 (SB 1150) is counting down to its effective date; see our post on Act 103 and Sunshine Act agenda additions . Source: HB 2771 bill page Practical tip: Write the request the way the Court reads it Subject, scope, timeframe.  The Commonwealth Court’s specificity test asks three questions: what activity or transaction is the request about, what kinds of documents are sought, and for what period. Requesters: name the activity (”legal services” or “transportation services,” not “all business”), name the document types (RFPs, invoices, contracts, payment records), and give a defined period. If you only want numbers, say so and say what you are not seeking, as the requester in Bruce (story 3) did. Agencies: if a request is unclear, say so in writing and invite the requester to narrow it. In Commonwealth Charter Academy (story 1), the Court noted that the written denials included no such invitation and no one contacted the requesters. Either way, the response deadline keeps running. Open Docket counts the business days for you.

Clock check Every Right-to-Know request runs on a clock. This month the Office of Open Records (OOR) put a number on how many clocks are running: an estimated more than 285,000 requests to Pennsylvania agencies in 2025. The five-business-day response period doesn’t stretch with volume, so agencies and requesters both do better when they know exactly when the clock started and when it stops. This week’s seven stories The Roundup · No. 1 OOR survey estimates more than 285,000 Right-to-Know requests in 2025 The OOR’s 2026 Agency Open Records Officer Survey Report went to 4,066 registered open records officers, and about 31% responded. From those answers, the OOR estimates that Pennsylvania agencies received more than 285,000 requests in 2025. Thirty-six percent of responding agencies said AI was used in at least some of their requests, nearly 90% reported at least some commercial requests, and the OOR says it now sees more than 500 appeals a month, up from a 2024 average of 269. The OOR treats the total as an estimate, and the report states it two ways (”over 285,000” and “nearly 288,000”), so read it as a range, not an exact count. I wrote a fuller summary in OOR survey estimates over 285,000 Right-to-Know requests in 2025 . Source: OOR, 2026 Agency Open Records Officer Survey Report (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Request volume is rising, but the RTKL’s deadlines are not, so agencies and requesters should plan for the clock rather than around it. . The Roundup · No. 2 Commonwealth Court (unreported): Sharing a police report doesn’t waive the criminal investigative exemption In Perry v. Pennsylvania State Police, No. 764 C.D. 2025 (Pa. Cmwlth. Oct. 19, 2026), an unreported memorandum opinion, the Court affirmed OOR’s denial of a request for a 58-page State Police criminal incident report. The requester argued that PSP had already given the report to her adversary in civil litigation. The Court held that “allegations of past disclosure by PSP do not constitute waiver for RTKL exemption purposes,” and that the report was exempt under Section 708(b)(16) and barred from release by the Criminal History Record Information Act. Because the opinion is unreported, it is not binding precedent; my summary is at Commonwealth Court: sharing a police report with a civil adversary does not waive the criminal investigation exemption . Source: Commonwealth Court opinion (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Under Perry, an agency that shared a record with someone else hasn’t, for that reason alone, given up an exemption against a later RTKL requester. The Roundup · No. 3 OOR: West York police may redact 287(g) officers’ names but can’t withhold the records entirely In Leuba v. West York Borough Police Department, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-3954 (Oct. 16, 2026), the requester sought records identifying officers credentialed or nominated under the federal 287(g) immigration program. OOR found that the police chief’s attestation showed that disclosing the identities of the officers, and of other agencies’ personnel, would be reasonably likely to threaten their personal security under Section 708(b)(1)(ii). But the Department did not explain why the records themselves could not be redacted, so under Section 706 OOR ordered it to produce them with the identifying information removed. A separate decision the day before, AP 2026-3891, upheld the same Department’s name redactions in its 287(g) correspondence. Source: OOR Final Determination, AP 2026-3954 (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: A proven security risk can justify redacting names, but withholding a whole record takes evidence about the record itself. The Roundup · No. 4 Report: Beaver County attorney asks state lawmakers to curb “Right-to-Know abuse” The Beaver Countian reports that a handful of residents who have each filed dozens of requests, some seeking hundreds of records, have prompted calls for limits on the RTKL. According to the report, attorney Garen Fedeles, whose firm represents many of the county’s local governments, wrote to state Reps. Josh Kail, Roman Kozak and Robert Matzie and Sen. Elder Vogel on Oct. 9: “This is straining our local governments and it has to stop.” Under current law, Section 506(a) lets an agency deny repeated requests for the same record that have placed an unreasonable burden on it. Source: Beaver Countian, “County Seeks State Legislation To End ‘Right-To-Know Abuse’” (Oct. 14) Key takeaway: Pressure for volume limits is building at the local level, but for now agencies have only the tools the RTKL already provides, and requesters keep every right the statute already grants. The Roundup · No. 5 Governor signs SB 1150, narrowing mid-meeting agenda additions under the Sunshine Act On Oct. 22, Governor Shapiro signed SB 1150 (Sen. Stefano) as Act 103 of 2026, one of 58 bills he signed that day. The bill passed the Senate 50-0 on June 10 and the House 182-21 on Oct. 21 (Printer’s No. 1399). It responds to Coleman v. Parkland School District, No. 33 MAP 2024 (Pa. Nov. 24, 2025), where the Supreme Court held that Section 712.1 creates four standalone exceptions to the 24-hour agenda rule, including adding an item by majority vote during a meeting. Under the amended Section 712.1(e), an agency may still add an item by majority vote during a meeting, with the reason announced before the vote, but only for a matter “arising under subsection (b), (c) or (d)”: emergencies, de minimis business that arose within 24 hours before the meeting, and de minimis business a resident or taxpayer raises at the meeting. The amended agenda must still be posted by the next business day on the agency’s website, if it has one, and at its principal office. Section 2 of the act says it takes effect in 60 days. HB 2146 (Rep. Freeman), which passed the House 193-9 on July 1, remains in Senate State Government; the Lehigh Valley Press reported that it adds an “undue hardship” exception for certain administrative items. Source: Governor’s Office, “Governor Shapiro Signs 58 Bills into Law” (Oct. 22) · SB 1150 bill history · SB 1150 text, Printer’s No. 1399 · Governor signs SB 1150 as Act 103 (rtkldecisions.com) · HB 2146 bill history · Supreme Court opinion in Coleman (PDF) · Lehigh Valley Press (Oct. 16) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: Until Act 103 takes effect, Coleman‘s majority-vote exception still applies; after that, a board can add an item mid-meeting only if it fits the emergency or de minimis exceptions, so solicitors should update agenda procedures now. The Roundup · No. 6 OOR: Copyright limits copies, not inspection, of non-exempt airport records In Bumpers v. Philadelphia International Airport, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-1036 (Oct. 15, 2026), a request for PFAS sampling and firefighting-foam records, OOR allowed the Airport to withhold figures showing critical infrastructure under Section 708(b)(3)(iii). Some other figures had been redacted because the third parties who prepared the reports had marked them as copyrighted. Citing Ali v. Philadelphia City Planning Commission, OOR explained that the Copyright Act limits duplication, not inspection, and ordered the Airport to make any non-exempt copyrighted figures available for in-person inspection within thirty days. Source: OOR Final Determination, AP 2026-1036 (PDF) · Watch the Short Key takeaway: A copyright legend can stop an agency from making copies, but it doesn’t by itself stop a requester from looking. The Roundup · No. 7 OOR: Lancaster may redact surveillance camera specs, but not its camera vendor’s name In Grivas v. City of Lancaster, OOR Dkt. AP 2026-3441 (Oct. 20, 2026), OOR held that the City could redact the technical information about its surveillance cameras, including embedded links, under the infrastructure security exemption, Section 708(b)(3). The City’s evidence about the vendor’s name and contact information and the name of the live-feed host was “conclusory,” so those had to be released. OOR also held that the camera service contracts are public financial records that may be redacted but not withheld. Surveillance technology is on the legislative agenda too: HB 2771, the automated license plate reader bill, passed the House 190-13 on Oct. 19. See my summary at OOR: Lancaster may redact surveillance camera specs but not its camera vendor’s name . Source: OOR Final Determination, AP 2026-3441 (PDF) · HB 2771 bill history · Watch the Short Key takeaway: How a security system works can be protected with a credible attestation, but who sells or hosts it generally can’t without specific evidence of a real threat. Also this week Anti-SLAPP and public records A shield for speech, a ruling still to come. Anti-SLAPP watch Carbon County court hears anti-SLAPP argument in Lehighton school director removal case On Oct. 19, Carbon County President Judge Roger N. Nanovic heard argument on a Public School Code Section 318 petition to remove Lehighton Area School Director David F. Bradley Sr. for posting district records online, the Times News reports . One issue was whether Pennsylvania’s anti-SLAPP law, the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), applies. Bradley says it makes him immune and entitles him to fees. The petitioners argue a Section 318 petition is not a cause of action and that disclosing a student’s medical information is not protected expression. What UPEPA says. Act 72 of 2024 covers claims based on “protected public expression,” including communications in governmental proceedings and free speech or press activity “on a matter of public concern” ( § 8340.13 , § 8340.14 ). A person is immune if the claimant fails to make a prima facie case or state a claim, or if no genuine issue of material fact exists ( § 8340.15 ). An immune party recovers fees; a frivolous or delaying immunity claim shifts fees the other way ( § 8340.18 ). Exclusions include claims against government employees acting in an official capacity ( § 8340.14(b) ). For requesters and agencies. UPEPA does not mention the Right-to-Know Law; coverage depends on the claim and the facts. In a Sept. 15 per curiam order, the Supreme Court said the effective date of the special-motion procedure in § 8340.16 has not been established ( Hernandez v. Zook ). Disclosure: I represent Mr. Bradley in this case. As of Oct. 23, no ruling has issued. Not legal advice. Five business days, counted from receipt. This week’s tip Count the five days from receipt, and keep the proof Under Section 901 (65 P.S. § 67.901), an agency has five business days from the date its open records officer receives a written request to respond, or the request is deemed denied. Under Section 902(b) (65 P.S. § 67.902(b)), an agency that needs more time must send written notice within those same five business days, stating a listed reason and a reasonable date for a response. If that date is more than 30 days past the five business days, the request is deemed denied unless the requester agrees in writing. In Perry (story 2), PSP received the request on April 4, 2025 and mailed its extension letter on April 11, within five business days, so the Court rejected the requester’s argument that the letter was untimely. Agencies: keep proof of the date you mailed or sent the notice. Requesters: note the receipt date you can prove, then calendar the 15-business-day appeal window under Section 1101(a)(1). Open Docket counts these business days for you. Until next Monday Thank you for reading 

Pennsylvania Court Imposes Maximum $1,500 RTKL Civil Penalty for Bad Faith Act 22 Denial – Mahanoy City Case

What Is a Cease and Desist Letter, and What Should You Do If You Receive One?

The Importance of Transparency in Municipal Law

Understand your rights against workplace discrimination. Contact Schnee Legal Services for expert legal help.