Court exempts court's e-mails
Font size: [A] [A] [A]
A decision this month by Commonwealth Court further defines the power of the state's relatively new Right to Know Law, and this one won't be helpful to the public.
Judge Dan Pellegrini said in ruling against the release of e-mails of court employees that one such power of the judicial branch was to "supervise its own personnel without interference from another branch of government."
While the courts are certainly unique in their function, to apply the judge's logic to the legislative and executive branches of government would leave us all in the dark.
The case involved the request of Charles Schillinger, a reporter from the Scranton Times-Tribune (a sister paper of The News-Item), who sought "inappropriate e-mails" sent and received by Lackawanna County's director of domestic relations, Pat Luongo, who had been suspended for receiving and distributing such e-mails in the summer of 2009. In Lackawanna County, as in most Pennsylvania counties, the director and staff of the domestic relations office are classified as employees for the county's court of common pleas.
After first being denied access, Schillinger appealed to the Office of Open Records, which granted access. However, the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) filed an injunction on behalf of Lackawanna County in January and the case went to Commonwealth Court.
Even though Luongo was an employee paid by the county, his work and supervision by the county court shielded the requested e-mails, Pellegrini ruled. Thus, e-mails involving court employees will remain exempt from the Right to Know Law.
It's easy to imagine a similar scenario developing in just about any other county. In fact, readers may remember the battle a few years back between Northumber-land County President Judge Robert B. Sacavage and Commissioner Vinny Clausi over financial records involving the probation department. Many were surprised at that time to learn of the unique relationship of the courts, AOPC and county government.
An important reaction from the Pellegrini ruling came from State Office of Open Records Deputy Director Barry Fox, who urged people - reporters or anyone from the public - to continue to make requests.
"You don't know (what's available) until you make a request," he said in a newspaper interview. "It certainly doesn't eliminate all e-mails as public records."
The Office of Open Records is taking some time to look at the ruling and decide if it will appeal.
Of course, not to be overlooked in this case is that, ultimately, it is a judge who is ruling on a matter involving the courts. We don't suggest there's a direct conflict of interest in this case, but it makes the chances for a successful appeal seem unlikely. As Robert D. Richards, an attorney and professor at Penn State, said, "I don't hold out a whole lot of hope that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would tinker with what the Commonwealth Court did."
(Heintzelman, editor of The News-Item, writes "The Week In News" for each Saturday edition.)
To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.
Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.
