Opinion
No. 1278 C.D. 2014
06-08-2015
Borough of West Easton, Appellant v. Tricia J. Mezzacappa
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
The Borough of West Easton (Borough) appeals from the June 20, 2014 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County (trial court), which denied the Borough's appeals of two separate Final Determinations of the Office of Open Records (OOR). The OOR's two Final Determinations granted in part, and denied in part, Tricia J. Mezzacappa's (Requester) five Right to Know Law (RTKL) Requests. On appeal, the Borough argues that the OOR erred by (1) not permitting the Borough to charge copying fees for redacted records; (2) not permitting the Borough to redact its bank account and routing numbers from requested documents; (3) issuing an untimely decision; and (4) concluding that the RTKL Requests were not impermissibly vague. Discerning no error, we affirm the Order of the trial court.
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 - 67.3104.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2012, a DUI treatment center was established in the Borough by West Easton Development, L.P. (West Easton Development) and subsequently leased to Northampton County. (Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) Pursuant to "the Borough's zoning ordinance, West Easton Development was required to pay" the Borough an impact fee of $150 per month for each occupant at the center, up to a maximum amount of $50,000 per year. (Trial Ct. Op. at 2.) Requester submitted five separate RTKL Requests seeking information related to the DUI treatment center. (Trial Ct. Op. at 2-5, 22.) Following the Borough's denial of certain information related to the treatment centers, Requester appealed to the OOR, which issued two separate Final Determinations in the matter. Details of each Request, the responses by the Borough, and the OOR's and the trial court's dispositions of the appeals are as follows.
A. Requester's First Appeal to the OOR
1. Requester's August 15, 2013 RTKL Request
On August 15, 2013, Requester submitted a written RTKL Request (August 15, 2013 RTKL Request) to inspect the Borough's records, which stated:
I am requesting for inspection only all minutes, check lists (all funds) approved at the 8/12/2013 Borough Council meeting. I am requesting the inspection of the July 2013 bank statements, as well as all supporting accounting documents that are on file to show the receipt
of funds for the DUI center impact fee, for months not already requested. This would be the copy of checks received from West Easton Development, [L.P.] for June 2013 to present, the statement of account for West Easton Development, [L.P.], showing where the revenue was recorded, the deposit slip for the receipt of funds, a receipt given to West Easton Development acknowledging the receipt of funds, and any other records you have to support his payment to the Borough, for the impact fee. Inspection only.(August 15, 2013 RTKL Request, R.R. at 78a.) Thereafter, on August 22, 2013, the Borough informed Requester that pursuant to Section 902 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.902, it would invoke its right to a thirty-day time extension to respond to the Request. (Trial Ct. Op. at 3.) The Borough advised Requester that it needed a thirty-day extension in order to conduct legal review, determine if any documents needed to be redacted, and due to staffing limitations. (Trial Ct. Op. at 3.)
2. Requester's First August 19, 2013 RTKL Request
On August 19, 2013, Requester submitted her next written RTKL Request (First August 19, 2013 RTKL Request) to the Borough, which stated: "Please provide copies of all paid and cancelled checks from your third party contractor, West Easton Development, L.P., that were made payable to West Easton Borough for the period September 2012 through present, deposited by West Easton Borough and which reflect his payment of the DUI center impact fee." (First August 19, 2013 RTKL Request, R.R. at 79a.) On August 26, 2013, the Borough requested a thirty-day extension, again asserting staffing limitations and the need for legal review and potential redaction. (Trial Ct. Op. at 4.)
3. Requester's Second August 19, 2013 RTKL Request
On August 19, 2013, Requester submitted a second written RTKL Request (Second August 19, 2013 RTKL Request) to the Borough, which stated:
Please provide in the least costly medium (preferably email) the minutes and checklists approved at the June 2013 and July 2013 meetings. Please provide the bank statements for May and June 2013, and the statements of financial interest for Kelly Gross and Tom Nodoline that were due on May 1, 2013. I would like copies for inspection. I would like to see all accounting records for all deposits appearing on the general fund, bank statements from September 2012 through present. All accounting records means every accounting detail behind every deposit that appears. This must include deposit slips, copies of checks, invoices, posting the deposit to a revenue account and the source of the receipt of funds. Mr. Atiyeh[']s DUI center revenue must be lumped in with the deposits somewhere (according to your OOR affidavit), but obviously the bank statements alone do not show where his payments were deposited. Therefore, it is now necessary to see all of the accounting records for all deposits to pinpoint where and when he paid this money to West Easton. I assume I will need an entire afternoon to inspect the records.(Borough's September 23rd Response Letter (September 23rd Letter), R.R. at 60a-61a.) On August 26, 2013, the Borough invoked its right to a thirty-day extension, again asserting staffing limitations and the need for legal review and potential redaction. (Trial Ct. Op. at 5.)
4. Requester's August 26, 2013 RTKL Request
On August 26, 2013, Requester submitted another written RTKL Request (August 26, 2013 RTKL Request), stating "Please provide all paid invoices for 2013 for all funds. I would like to inspect the records." (August 26, 2013 RTKL Request, R.R. at 105a.) On September 3, 2013, the Borough invoked its right to a thirty-day extension, again asserting staffing limitations and the need for legal review and potential redaction. (Trial Ct. Op. at 6.)
5. The Borough's Response to the August 15, 2013 RTKL Request and Two August 19, 2013 RTKL Requests
On September 23, 2013, the Borough mailed Requester a substantive response to the August 15, 2013 RTKL Request and two August 19, 2013 RTKL Requests. (Trial Ct. Op. at 6.) First, the Borough granted Requester's Request to view the minutes and approved checklists from the August 12, 2013 meeting. (Trial Ct. Op. at 7.) In order to view these records, the Borough required that Requester arrange an appointment between 1 pm to 5 pm, Tuesdays through Fridays, and that her inspection be supervised. (Trial Ct. Op. at 7.) Second, the Borough granted Requester's Request to inspect the DUI treatment center monthly occupancy records for June and July 2013, but denied Requester's Request to inspect supporting accounting documents "because no responsive records exist[ed]" and because Requester's "multiple requests for DUI center impact fee records [were] disruptive." (September 23rd Letter, R.R. at 61a.) The Borough informed Requester that the multiple Requests were disruptive because (1) Requester had already made three or more Requests for those records in the period since September 2012; (2) Requester had previously brought litigation against the Borough after the Borough charged Requester a $19 copying fee, which had placed an unreasonable burden on the Borough; and (3) except for the occupancy records and monthly bank statements, the Borough possessed no other records related to the DUI treatment center. (Trial Ct. Op. at 7-8.)
Third, the Borough denied Requester's First August 19, 2013 RTKL Request to view the cancelled checks that were payable to the Borough because they were not in its possession. (Trial Ct. Op. at 8.) The Borough informed Requester that because the cancelled checks were in the possession of a third-party, non-governmental entity, they were not subject to disclosure under the RTKL. (Trial Ct. Op. at 8.) In the interest of accommodating Requester, however, the Borough offered to ask West Easton Development to search for copies of the checks, provided that Requester paid for all retrieval and copying charges. (Trial Ct. Op. at 9.)
Fourth, the Borough granted Requester's "request for copies of the minutes and checklists approved at the June and July 2013 Borough Council meetings . . . the May and June 2013 bank statements[,] . . . [and] the statements of financial interest of Kelly Gross and Tom Nodoline," provided that Requester pay the $13.25 copying fee. (September 23rd Letter, R.R. at 63a.) Fifth, the Borough denied Requester's Request for the DUI treatment center impact fee records created since September 2012 because the Request was disruptive for the reasons outlined in its earlier response and because such records did not exist. (Trial Ct. Op. at 9.) Finally, the Borough informed Requester to set up an appointment in order to view the records granted for inspection and to "pay the copying fee for the record Requests that have been granted for copies." (September 23rd Letter, R.R. at 64a.) The response also informed Requester: "Please be advised that no appointment to inspect will be made until after you have paid the copying fees for the records granted to you in this letter." (September 23rd Letter, R.R. at 64a.) Except for the $13.25 in copying fees for the Second August 19, 2013 RTKL Request, the Borough did not mention any other copying fees owed by Requester. (Trial Ct. Op. at 10.) The Borough also did not inform Requester "that access to records would be conditioned on payment of any outstanding copying fees for previous Requests or prepayment of copying fees for redaction." (Trial Ct. Op. at 10.)
6. The Borough's Response to the August 26, 2013 RTKL Request
On October 3, 2013, the Borough provided its response to the August 26, 2013 RTKL Request, granting Requester's Request to inspect the 2013 invoice records. (Trial Ct. Op. at 10.) The response advised Requester to arrange an inspection time, but that "no appointment to inspect will be made until after you have paid all outstanding copying fees." (Borough's October 3rd Response Letter (October 3rd Letter), R.R. at 121a-22a.) The response did not advise Requester of which specific copying fees she owed. (Trial Ct. Op. at 11.)
7. The Borough's subsequent conditions on access
Requester set up an appointment to inspect the records for October 9, 2013, for which she had been granted access. (Trial Ct. Op. at 11.) The day before the scheduled inspection, October 8, 2013, the Borough sent Requester a letter reminding her that it had previously granted the right to inspect the DUI treatment center monthly occupancy records, the July 2013 Borough Council minutes and checklists, and the July 2013 bank statements. (Trial Ct. Op. at 11.) The Borough also advised Requester that it had been "necessary to redact the census records and bank statements" and asked her to pay $12.50 for 50 copies made for redaction purposes. (Borough's October 8th Letter (October 8th Letter), R.R. at 65a.) The Borough also informed Requester that she "owe[d] $29.25 for copies of records made as a result of the Commonwealth Court's September 6, 2013 decision in [her] favor" and that the $29.25 must be paid before she would be allowed to inspect the records. (October 8th Letter, R.R. at 65a-66a.) Further, the Borough stated in the October 8th Letter that, although it granted Requester the right to inspect all 2013 invoices, those records required redaction and it estimated that the cost of redaction exceeded $100. (Trial Ct. Op. at 12.) The Borough instructed Requester that if she wished to proceed with inspection it would calculate the exact amount due for redaction costs, but that Requester was required to pay all redaction costs prior to inspection of the documents. (Trial Ct. Op. at 12.) Thereafter, Requester paid the $13.25 in copying charges for which she had been initially assessed in the September 23rd Letter, but did not pay the $12.50 copying costs for redacting the census records and bank statements, the $29.25 copying costs that the Borough incurred following this Court's September 6, 2013 decision, or any costs associated with redacting the 2013 invoices. (Trial Ct. Op. at 12-13.) Requester did not inspect the documents on October 9, 2013. (Trial Ct. Op. at 12.)
See Borough of West Easton v. Mezzacappa, 74 A.3d 417 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (affirming the OOR's determination granting Requester access to certain Borough records).
8. The OOR's First Final Determination
Subsequently, Requester filed an appeal with the OOR on October 8, 2013. Requester challenged the Borough's redactions and assessment of copying fees, when those conditions were not asserted in the Borough's September 23rd Letter or October 3rd Letter; the Borough's denial of Requester's August 15, 2013 RTKL Request, which sought the DUI treatment center's other accounting documents; and the Borough's full or partial denials of the two August 19, 2013 RTKL Requests. (OOR Final Determination at Docket No. AP 2013-1877 (First OOR Final Determination) at 4.)
On November 21, 2013, the OOR granted in part, and denied in part, Requester's appeal. Although the OOR made multiple determinations, only those determinations of relevance to the instant appeal are discussed herein.
The issuing of the Final Determination on November 21, 2013 occurred after the OOR asked Requester, on November 5, 2013, whether she would agree to extend the due date for its Final Determination until November 21, 2013. Requester agreed and the OOR emailed its Final Determination to the parties at 5:22 pm on November 21, 2013.
First, the OOR concluded that Requester's appeal of the Borough's partial denial of the Second August 19, 2013 RTKL Request was insufficient for failing to follow the proper procedure. (First OOR Final Determination at 7.) Second, the OOR determined that the Borough was not entitled to assert new grounds for refusing to process a RTKL Request, i.e., payment of "outstanding duplication fees for records previously provided" and redaction fees, after the RTKL Request had already been granted. (First OOR Final Determination at 7.) Although the OOR noted that "the Borough [was] entitled to payment for outstanding duplication fees for prior Requests and [was] also entitled to seek prepayment of duplication costs where they exceed $100," the OOR concluded that because the Borough had already processed and granted the Requests it could "[not] rely on th[e stated] grounds where the grounds were not raised during the initial five (5) business day response period." (First OOR Final Determination at 8.)
Third, the OOR determined that the Borough was required to permit Requester to inspect unredacted records. (First OOR Final Determination at 10.) The OOR concluded that the Borough did not meet its burden of demonstrating that certain information was exempt from disclosure. (First OOR Final Determination at 10.) Accordingly, the OOR held that the Borough must permit Requester to inspect unredacted copies of the requested documents. (First OOR Final Determination at 10.)
Fourth, the OOR determined that, with respect to the cancelled checks from West Easton Development, "the Borough ha[d] constructive control of its own bank records and [was] thus required to obtain them . . . and provide them to the Requester." (First OOR Final Determination at 11.) Although the OOR determined that the Borough was required to provide Requester with the cancelled checks, since Requester stated she did not seek West Easton Development's routing and bank account numbers, the OOR concluded that the Borough was permitted to redact that information from the checks. (First OOR Final Determination at 11.)
B. Requester's Second Appeal to the OOR
1. Requester's September 15, 2013 RTKL Request
On September 15, 2013, Requester submitted another RTKL Request (September 15, 2013 RTKL Request), which stated as follows:
I am requesting for inspection only all minutes, check lists (all funds) approved at the 9/9/2013 Borough Council meeting. I am requesting the inspection of the August 2013 bank statements, as well as all supporting accounting documents that are on file to show the receipt
of funds for the DUI center impact fee, for months not already requested. This would be the copy of checks received from West Easton Development, [L.P.] for June 2013 to present, the statement of account for West Easton Development, [L.P.], showing where the revenue was recorded, the deposit slip for the receipt of funds, a receipt given to West Easton Development acknowledging the receipt of funds, and any other records you have to support his payment to the Borough, for the impact fee. I am also requesting all cancelled checks from West Easton Development, [L.P.] that were cashed by West Easton Borough from September 2012 through present, which reflect the DUI Center impact fee. Inspection only.(September 15, 2013 RTKL Request, R.R. at 33a.) On September 23, 2013, the Borough requested a thirty-day extension, asserting staffing limitations and the need for legal review and potential redaction. (Trial Ct. Op. at 23.)
2. The Borough's Response to the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request
On October 23, 2013, the Borough provided its response. (Trial Ct. Op. at 23.) The Borough granted Requester the right to inspect all minutes and checklists from the September 9, 2013 Borough Council meeting. (Trial Ct. Op. at 23.) The Borough also granted Requester the right to inspect "the August 2013 bank statements, subject to necessary redaction of account numbers," and payment of a total copying fee of $8.75. (Borough October 23rd Response Letter (October 23rd Letter), R.R. at 29a.) However, the Borough denied Requester's Request to view any other documents related to the DUI treatment center because it deemed the Request unspecific and disruptive. (Trial Ct. Op. at 23-24.) The Borough claimed that the Request was not specific under Section 703 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.703, because the Request "for months not already requested" did not sufficiently identify for which months Requester was requesting records. (October 23rd Letter, R.R. at 30a.) The Borough deemed the Request disruptive because Requester had made repeated Requests for the same records, the records did not exist, and the Request for non-existing records placed an unreasonable burden on the Borough. (Trial Ct. Op. at 24.) For the records that the Borough granted the right to view, the Borough instructed Requester to arrange a time to inspect them, but advised Requester that she would not be able to view the documents until she paid all outstanding copying fees incurred in connection with her "September 15 Request, as well as past fees set forth in the Borough's" September 23rd and October 8th Letters. (October 23rd Letter, R.R. at 30a.) Requester did not pay any copying fees or submit a more specific Request. (Trial Ct. Op. at 23-24.)
3. The OOR's Second Final Determination
On November 2, 2013, Requester appealed the Borough's partial denial of the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request to the OOR, challenging the (1) Borough's imposition of copying fees, (2) redaction of bank account numbers from the August 2013 bank statements, and (3) the Borough's determination that the Request was insufficiently specific. (OOR Final Determination at Docket No. AP 2013-2078 (Second OOR Final Determination) at 5-7.) In its appeal, Requester also informed the OOR that the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request contained a typo and that, rather than referring to September 2012, the Request actually referred to September 2013. (Trial Ct. Op. at 25.)
On November 27, 2013, OOR granted in part, and denied in part, Requester's appeal. The OOR first determined that the Borough could condition the inspection of its records on payment of outstanding fees from earlier RTKL Requests. (Second OOR Final Determination at 5.) The OOR concluded that there was evidence of non-payment of $19.00 from earlier Requests and, therefore, the Borough could withhold access to its records until Requester paid the $19.00 fee. (Second OOR Final Determination at 5-6.)
Second, the OOR concluded that the account numbers on the Borough's bank statements could not be redacted because the "bank statements [were] financial records subject to disclosure under the RTKL . . . [t]he RTKL contains no exclusion for the Borough's account numbers . . . [and] the Borough submitted no evidence supporting its submission to the OOR that the account numbers could be utilized to threaten the Borough's security or asserted any exemptions." (Second OOR Final Determination at 6.) Since the Borough was not permitted to redact the bank account numbers, the OOR mandated that the Borough also could not charge Requester the $8.75 copying fee. (Second OOR Final Determination at 6.)
Third, regarding the supporting accounting documents for the DUI treatment center, the OOR concluded that the Request was (1) not disruptive because Requester's Request referred to a different time period than earlier Requests, and (2) sufficiently specific because it was "limited to the period from June 2013 through September 15, 2013" and "define[d] finite categories of records." (Second OOR Final Determination at 7.) However, because the Borough submitted an affidavit stating that the occupancy census reports and bank records were the only records in its possession pertaining to the Request, the OOR only required the Borough to allow Requester to inspect the bank statements and census reports from June 1, 2013 until September 15, 2013. (Second OOR Final Determination at 7.)
C. The Borough's Appeal to the Trial Court
The Borough appealed both Final Determinations to the trial court. On appeal, the Borough alleged, inter alia, the following errors in the First OOR Final Determination: (1) the First OOR Final Determination was untimely because it "was emailed to the parties 22 minutes after the close of business" and, therefore, Requester's appeal should be deemed denied; (2) the Borough was permitted to charge copying fees for redaction because Requester "was given prior written notice that the requested records required redaction;" (3) the Borough was permitted to deny access to records until both copying fees and outstanding fees were paid by Requester; (4) the Borough's bank account numbers were exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b); (5) it was "inconsistent for the OOR to permit West Easton Development [] to redact its bank account numbers and routing numbers but to mandate that the Borough disclose its bank account numbers;" and (6) West Easton Development's cancelled checks were not subject to disclosure because West Easton Development is a private company that "does not perform an essential governmental function for the Borough." (Trial Ct. Op. at 29-30.) Regarding the Second OOR Final Determination, the Borough alleged, inter alia, the following errors: (1) the Borough's bank account numbers were exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b) of the RTKL; (2) Requester's multiple Requests for other DUI treatment center records were disruptive and placed an unreasonable burden on the Borough; and (3) the Borough was permitted to deny Requester "access to records until all outstanding copying fees" were paid. (Trial Ct. Op. at 30.)
The trial court addressed the Borough's appeals of both OOR Final Determinations concurrently. Only the issues of relevance to this appeal are discussed. The trial court first concluded that the Borough's bank account and routing numbers were not exempt from disclosure. (Trial Ct. Op. at 36.) Specifically, the trial court determined that Section 708(b) of the RTKL did not expressly protect the Borough's information and that the Borough had failed to meet "its burden of proving that its routing and bank account numbers are exempt from disclosure under the RTKL." (Trial Ct. Op. at 36.)
Second, the trial court addressed whether the Borough was required to obtain West Easton Development's cancelled checks. (Trial Ct. Op. at 37.) The trial court noted that "the OOR did not hold that West Easton Development's canceled checks are public records, and [OOR] did not direct the Borough to obtain the canceled checks from West Easton Development to be provided to [Requester] for public inspection." (Trial Ct. Op. at 37.) Rather, the trial court noted that the OOR concluded that "'the Borough ha[d] constructive control of its own bank records and [was] thus required to obtain them in order to respond to a request under the RTKL.'" (Trial Ct. Op. at 37-38 (quoting First OOR Final Determination at 11) (emphasis added by trial court).) Accordingly, the trial court upheld the OOR's determination that the Borough was required to obtain West Easton Development's cancelled checks and provide it to Requester "if such evidence exist[ed] at the Borough's own bank." (Trial Ct. Op. at 37-38.) The trial court also determined that because West Easton Development was a private entity its financial information was protected from disclosure under the RTKL and, therefore, it was not inconsistent for the OOR to protect West Easton Development's financial information while requiring the Borough to disclose its own financial information. (Trial Ct. Op. at 38-39.)
Third, the trial court affirmed the First OOR Final Determination insofar as the OOR concluded that the Borough could not condition access to documents on payment of outstanding fees and copying fees, after the Borough had originally granted unconditional access in its September 23rd and October 3rd Letters. (Trial Ct. Op. at 39-40.) The trial court determined that the OOR had committed a minor oversight in the First OOR Final Determination. (Trial Ct. Op. at 40.) OOR had stated that, "for the Borough to condition access to records on payment of copying fees for prior requests and future redaction," it was required to do so "'during the initial five (5) business day response period.'" (Trial Ct. Op. at 40 (quoting First OOR Final Determination at 8).) The trial court, however, concluded that "it was apparent that the OOR intended to refer not to the five-day response period but to the full response period as enlarged by thirty days at the option of the Borough." (Trial Ct. Op. at 40.) The trial court's conclusion was in part based on its assessment of the Second OOR Final Determination, which had allowed the Borough to condition access to records on payment of outstanding fees where the Borough had raised the issue of outstanding fees during the enlarged response period. (Trial Ct. Op. at 40.) Thus, the trial court held that, in order for the Borough to condition access to its records on the payment of fees, it was required to do so during the full response period. (Trial Ct. Op. at 40.)
Fourth, the trial court concluded that because Requester's RTKL Requests related to different time periods than earlier Requests, the Requests were not disruptive. (Trial Ct. Op. at 42.) Finally, the trial court concluded that because the First OOR Final Determination was mailed to the parties before midnight on the required date of November 21, 2013, it was not untimely. (Trial Ct. Op. at 43-44.)
II. DISCUSSION
On appeal, the Borough argues (1) the Borough's bank account numbers are exempt from disclosure under Section 708 of the RTKL; (2) the Borough is allowed to condition the access to requested records for the August 15, 2013, two August 19, 2013 and August 26, 2013 RTKL Requests on prepayment of outstanding fees and copying fees where the copying fees exceed $100; (3) the First OOR Final Determination was untimely and, therefore, deemed denied; and (4) the OOR erred in concluding that Requester's September 15, 2013 RTKL Request for DUI treatment center supporting accounting documents was not impermissibly vague.
"This Court's scope of review from a decision of a trial court in a case under the RTKL is 'limited to determining whether findings of facts are supported by competent evidence or whether the trial court committed an error of law, or an abuse of discretion in reaching its decision.'" Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859, 869 n.16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (quoting Kaplin v. Lower Merion Township, 19 A.3d 1209, 1213 n.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)).
The Borough's fourth issue was not raised in the Borough's Rule 1925(b) Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal (Statement); therefore, the Borough has waived this issue. Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1925(b)(4)(vii), Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii). However, even if the Borough had not waived the issue, we would conclude that Requester's September 15, 2013 RTKL Request was not impermissibly vague. The Borough argues that Requester's September 15, 2013 RTKL Request did not describe the records sought with sufficient specificity because Requester requested "all supporting accounting documents." (Borough's Br. at 24.) Pursuant to Section 703 of the RTKL, "[a] written request should identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested." 65 P.S. § 67.703. Although a request for "all supporting accounting documents" by itself may be vague, Requester only requested supporting accounting documents related to the DUI treatment center impact fee. (September 15, 2013 RTKL Request.) The Request also included a list of documents that Requester was seeking, such as checks received from West Easton Development, the statement of account, deposit slips for receipt of the funds, and other records related to the impact fee. (September 15, 2013 RTKL Request.) In addition, the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request for supporting accounting documents only refers to the period from June 2013 to September 15, 2013. (September 15, 2013 RTKL Request.) Since the Borough indicated in its October 23rd Letter that the only records responsive to the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request were occupancy census reports and bank statements, (October 23rd Letter, R.R. at 30a), it appears that the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request enabled the Borough to ascertain which records were being requested. 65 P.S. § 67.703. As determined by the OOR, because the September 15, 2013 RTKL Request referred to a limited timeframe and defined finite categories of records sought, the Request was sufficiently specific under the RTKL. (Second OOR Final Determination at 7.)
The issues raised in this appeal were thoroughly and correctly analyzed and the matter ably disposed of in the comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr. We agree with the trial court that the Borough's bank account numbers are not exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b), and that the Borough was not permitted to redact that information from the requested records. The objective of the RTKL "is to empower citizens by affording them access to information concerning the activities of their government." SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029, 1042 (Pa. 2012). One of the purposes of granting citizens access to information concerning governmental activities is to "make public officials accountable in their use of public funds." Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare, 976 A.2d 609, 617 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). Therefore, although we appreciate the Borough's concern with respect to its bank account numbers, the General Assembly chose not to exempt the Borough's financial information from disclosure. Exempting this information from disclosure would otherwise defeat the RTKL's purpose—which is to promote accountability and transparency in the disbursement of public funds—by preventing access to certain information that is crucial for determining how public funds are spent. For these reasons, we affirm on the basis of Judge Koury, Jr.'s opinion in Borough of West Easton v. Mezzacappa (Northampton County, No. C-48-CV-2013-12530, filed October 1, 2014).
We also note that bank account and routing numbers are printed on the bottom of checks. --------
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, June 8, 2015, the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County, entered in the above-captioned matter, is AFFIRMED on the basis of the opinion issued by the Honorable Michael J. Koury, Jr. in Borough of West Easton v. Mezzacappa (Northampton County, No. C-48-CV-2013-12530, filed October 1, 2014).
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge