Office of Open Records Opinion

FINAL DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF :
:
KEVIN HAYDEN, :
Requester :
:
v. : Docket No.: AP 2018-0244
:
CITY OF READING, :
Respondent :
On January 2, 2018, Kevin Hayden (“Requester”) submitted a request (“Request”) to the
City of Reading (“City”) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq.,
seeking “bid results and copy of proposals for ‘Request for Proposals City Hall Camera System
and Fire Alarm System City of Reading, PA.” On January 4, 2018, the City invoked a thirty-day
extension of time to respond to the Request. See 65 P.S. § 67.902(b). However, the City did not
subsequently respond, and the Request was deemed denied. See 65 P.S. § 67.902(b)(2). On
February 9, 2018, the Requester filed an appeal with the Office of Open Records (“OOR”), stating
grounds for disclosure.1 The OOR invited both parties to supplement the record. Neither party
made a submission on appeal.
Section 708 of the RTKL places the burden of proof on the City to demonstrate that records
are exempt from disclosure. 65 P.S. § 67.708(a)(1). In the present case, the City did not comply
1
The Requester provided the OOR with additional time to issue a final determination. See 65 P.S. § 67.1101(b)(1).
1
with the RTKL by issuing a final response to the Request, nor did the City provide any factual or
legal support for denying access to the requested records. Based on the City’s failure to comply
with the statutory requirements of the RTKL or to provide any evidentiary basis in support of an
exemption under the RTKL, the City has not met its burden under the RTKL. See 65 P.S. § 67.305.
Since January 2017, the OOR has granted eleven other appeals wherein the City invoked a
thirty-day extension but ultimately did not respond to the Request or participate on appeal. These
appeals are as follows:
• Braukus v. City of Reading, OOR Dkts. AP 2017-0994, AP 2017-0995, AP
2017-0996, AP 2017-0997, AP 2017-0998, AP 2017-0999, AP 2017-1033, AP
2017-1034, and AP 2017-1035
• Simone v. City of Reading, OOR Dkts. AP 2017-1491 and AP 2017-1492
Although the OOR may make findings of bad faith, only the courts have the authority to impose
sanctions on agencies. See generally 65 P.S. § 67.1304(a) (noting that a court “may award
reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation … if the court finds … the agency receiving the …
request willfully or with wanton disregard deprived the requester of access to a public record …
or otherwise acted in bad faith...”); 65 P.S. § 67.1305(a) (“A court may impose a civil penalty of
not more than $ 1,500 if an agency denied access to a public record in bad faith”). Here, the City
has repeatedly ignored requests for records and not participated before the OOR. Based on the
City’s failure to comply with its statutorily mandated duties under the RTKL, the OOR finds that
the City acted in bad faith in the present matter by engaging in the same conduct. See Office of
the District Attorney of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119, 1142 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017) (finding
that a trial court did not err in finding that an agency acted in bad faith when it “failed to conform
2
to the duties imposed by the RTKL in several respects,” including the failure to make a good faith
search for responsive records).
For the foregoing reasons, the Requester’s appeal is granted, and the City is required to
provide copies of all responsive records within thirty days. This Final Determination is binding
on all parties. Within thirty days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may
appeal to the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). All parties must be
served with notice of the appeal. The OOR also shall be served notice and have an opportunity to
respond according to court rules as per Section 1303 of the RTKL. However, as the quasi-judicial
tribunal adjudicating this matter, the OOR is not a proper party to any appeal and should not be
named as a party.2 This Final Determination shall be placed on the OOR website at:
http://openrecords.pa.gov.
FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: March 19, 2018
/s/ Kyle Applegate

______________________
APPEALS OFFICER
KYLE APPLEGATE, ESQ.
Sent to: Kevin Hayden (via e-mail only);

Fred Lachat, Esq. (via e-mail only)
2
Padgett v. Pa. State Police, 73 A.3d 644, 648 n.5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).

Office of Open Records Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of Open Records Opinion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Office of Open Records Opinion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL DETERMINATION

On January 2, 2018, Kevin Hayden (“Requester”) submitted a request (“Request”) to the

made a submission on appeal.

appeals are as follows:

• Braukus v. City of Reading, OOR Dkts. AP 2017-0994, AP 2017-0995, AP

2017-0996, AP 2017-0997, AP 2017-0998, AP 2017-0999, AP 2017-1033, AP

2017-1034, and AP 2017-1035

• Simone v. City of Reading, OOR Dkts. AP 2017-1491 and AP 2017-1492

search for responsive records).

FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: March 19, 2018

/s/ Kyle Applegate

Sent to: Kevin Hayden (via e-mail only);

You might also like