Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Confidential Security Information topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chester proposes procedures to handle confidential security information from utilities under Act 156
Summary
Council reviewed a resolution to adopt procedures based on Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission practice to handle confidential security information (Act 156); city solicitor said the policy does not block Right‑to‑Know requests and that public utilities must designate information as confidential for the protections to apply.
City of Chester officials reviewed Resolution 88 on Monday, July 21, a proposal to establish procedures and policies for handling confidential security information received by the city from public utilities. The measure would adopt a process similar to that used by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and cites statutory definitions in Act 156.
The City Solicitor (name not specified) told council the policy is designed to comply with state law governing “confidential security information,” which the solicitor said is defined in the statute and is intended to protect specific data — often tied to security concerns — from public release. The solicitor emphasized the city’s aim is compliance with the statute, not secrecy: “It’s not about hiding information … it is my understanding that the city does not have any confidential security information here,” the solicitor said, noting such materials are rare and must be marked by the utility as confidential when provided to the city.
The solicitor explained the process contained in the proposed resolution follows the model used by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission and includes steps for receipt, retention, response to requests and dissemination. If the city does receive a document that a utility designates as confidential security information, the policy would direct the matter first to the solicitor’s office; if a Right‑to‑Know request or litigation arises the city may need to seek a protective order from a court.
Council members asked whether the city clerk and assistant clerk would receive training to distinguish between information that may be released and that which must be shielded under the statute. The solicitor said the solicitor’s office would be involved in that process and cited a statutory reference: section 2 of Act 156 (35 P.S. § 2141.2), which defines “public utility” and the statutory framework for confidential security information.
The solicitor reiterated the policy is not a blanket shield against Right‑to‑Know requests for public information and that utilities are required to mark materials as confidential in order for the protections to apply. Resolution 88 is on the council agenda for final passage at the Wednesday meeting.
