Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public and council discuss right-to-know requests; solicitor outlines legal limits and staff burden
Summary
During public comment the solicitor explained the city's obligations under the right-to-know law, counseling residents to request specific documents rather than narrative answers and noting staff time required to respond to requests.
During public comment at the reorganizational meeting, the city's solicitor and staff described how the state's right-to-know law governs public-records requests and urged residents to begin with an informal inquiry to the city manager when possible.
Matthew Gigg, identified as the lawyer representing Dillon McCandless King Kalogram LLP, told the public that the right-to-know law governs requests for public records and that the law contains numerous exceptions, including attorney-client privilege and certain investigatory or personnel matters. He said the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has released decisions that affect how the law is applied and that the city must sometimes invoke a statutory 30-day extension if requests require additional legal research.
Gigg said requesters should ask for documents rather than narrative explanations; he explained the city is not required to create a record that does not exist. He described the administrative burden on staff: right-to-know requests require a diligent search, preparation of sworn affidavits when records cannot be found, and sometimes redaction of exempt information. He said the city receives roughly three to five new right-to-know requests per week and that responding can consume significant staff time across multiple departments.
Resident Kristen Vida asked whether the public could be better educated about what is actually public so that requesters do not ask for narrative responses that the city will deny. The solicitor and a council member both recommended contacting the city manager or staff first for an informal inquiry; if a requester then needs a formal right-to-know request, the manager can advise them to file one.
The solicitor also noted the statutory deadlines: an initial response is due within five business days unless a 30-day extension is invoked for complex legal issues. He said denials must cite the specific statutory or case-law basis so the requester can understand the legal grounds for denial.
The council recorded concern from members and the public that records once handled differently under earlier rules are now treated under current law and that the city posts responses and many records on its website when they are not confidential.
No formal action was taken on right-to-know procedure at this meeting; council members directed staff to continue posting non-confidential materials and to offer informal guidance to residents before formal requests are filed.
