Scolforo v. Cnty. of York

298 A.3d 193

Liz Evans SCOLFORO and The York Dispatch, Appellants

v.The COUNTY OF YORK

Liz Evans Scolforo, Appellant

v.The County of York

No. 359 C.D. 2021

No. 360 C.D. 2021

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued September 12, 2022

Decided July 10, 2023

Paula Knudsen Burke, Lancaster, for Appellants.

Michelle Pokrifka, York, for Appellee.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

Before the Court are two consolidated appeals arising out of a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)¹ request for name, salary, job title, and length of service, including start and end dates, for employees of the York County Prothonotary's Office (Prothonotary) by Liz Evans Scolforo and The York Dispatch (together, Requester). In the first appeal, Requester argues the Court of Common Pleas of York County (common pleas) erred in its January 25, 2021 decision (January Decision) affirming the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), which concluded the OOR lacked jurisdiction over the records at issue in Requester's appeal because Prothonotary is a judicial agency and the requested records are "of" that judicial agency. The January Decision also directed York County (County) to refer Requester's RTKL request to the 19th Judicial District Records Manager (Judicial Records Manager). Requester asserts Prothonotary is not a judicial agency but a county agency, the requested records are those "of" County and not "of" the judicial agency, and common pleas should not have directed the transfer of the matter to Judicial Records Manager.

In the second appeal, Requester challenges common pleas’ President Judge Musti Cook's (President Judge) March 17, 2021 decision (March Decision) that confirmed Judicial Records Manager's decision that followed the matter's transfer under the January Decision. Judicial Records Manager ordered the disclosure of the name, salary, and job title of Prothonotary employees as a financial record, but redacted from that disclosure the hiring and termination dates (the length of service) of those employees, reasoning they were not a financial record subject to disclosure. Requester argues the length of service dates are clearly disclosable under the RTKL or Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 509, Pa.R.J.A. 509 (Rule 509) (governing the disclosure of financial records of the judiciary).

Thus, in these appeals, we must determine: (1) if Prothonotary is a judicial agency; (2) if so, are the requested records of Prothonotary rather than of County; and (3) if the requested records are of Prothonotary, is the length of an employee's service a financial record subject to disclosure? We answer the first two questions in the affirmative and, therefore, affirm the January Decision upholding the OOR's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over Requester's appeal. However, we answer the last question in the negative, concluding Prothonotary employees’ length of service records bear a "sufficiently close connection" to the "fiscally related" categories in the RTKL's definition of financial record and deal with the disbursement of public monies making them disclosable pursuant to City of Harrisburg v. Prince , 656 Pa. 23, 219 A.3d 602 (2019). Therefore, we reverse the March Decision affirming the redaction of that information from the records provided to Requester.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Requests

Requester's attempts to obtain records relating to Prothonotary employees have been numerous, and the responses thereto have been conflicting. Requester first submitted a RTKL request to County on July 28, 2020, requesting "the number of employees who have resigned from the York County Prothonotary[’s] Office between Jan[uary] 3, 2020, and July 28, 2020, as well as the number of years of service each resigning employee had with the office." (Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 45a, 172a.) County replied that Prothonotary "is a court office and therefore this request must be submitted through the court's RTK office." (Id . at 45a.)

On July 29, 2020, Requester submitted a request under Rule 509 via email to Judicial Records Manager.² Therein, Requester stated "Prothonotary employees are considered employees of a judicial agency[,]" and "[t]he court has a legal duty to provide access to financial records[ ]" (Prior Request). (Id. at 16a, 52a-53a.) Judicial Records Manager denied the Prior Request, explaining:

Employees in [ P]rothonotary's office are subject to the joint supervision of independently elected officials of county government ([ P]rothonotary and the county commissioners) who are not under the jurisdiction of me, the president judge, nor any other member of the state judiciary regarding hiring, firing, promoting, demoting, disciplining, terminating, or compensating those employees. The court has absolutely no authority over, responsibility for, nor access to any personnel record of any employee in [ P]rothonotary's office. Furthermore, even if we did have access to that information, it would not be a financial record of funds appropriated to the court subject to the RTKL as it pertains to the judiciary. As such, your request to this office remains denied. If you want access to county employee records, which may or may not be subject to disclosure under the RTKL by the keeper of those records, you need to direct that request to the county agency that has access to and control of those records. If you disagree with my decision, your option is to file an appeal to the president judge.

(Id . at 52a.)

After receiving this denial, Requester emailed the then-president judge of common pleas and County Solicitor (Solicitor), explaining County told her the information must come from Judicial Records Manager, and Judicial Records Manager told her it must come from County. (Id . at 51a.) Further emails were exchanged in which Requester indicated their "media attorney" confirmed Prothonotary was a judicial agency position, and Judicial Records Manager responded Requester's attorney was incorrect and the records had to be sought from County. (Id. at 52a-53a.) According to Requester, the then-president judge called her on July 30, 2020, to explain the court administration office did not have the records she was requesting and "those records must come from [ ] County." (Id . at 50a.) Requester did not appeal this denial.

Instead, on August 10, 2020, Requester sent an email to County, making a second RTKL request, explaining:

This RTKL request does NOT replace my July 28[, 2020] RTKL request seeking similar information. I have heard nothing from [C]ounty about that request since a county official erroneously stated that I should be getting that information elsewhere. I believe [ ] County should still be actively handling the July 28[, 2020,] RTKL request. Today's request is merely similar.

If the July 28[, 2020,] request is NOT actively being handled, please alert me so I may contact the Office of Open Records about my options. Had [S]olicitor [ ] ever gotten back to me, I wouldn't be unsure about the status.

... I am requesting access to salary records for all [P]rothonotary employees from Jan[uary] 1, 2020, to present, showing name, salary, job title and length of service, including start and end dates, please.

(Id. at 54a (emphasis omitted).) The next day the Solicitor's Office responded, explaining Requester "was advised that [her July 28, 2020] request would have to be submitted to the" Judicial Records Manager, and "[t]hat request was, therefore, closed as a County Open Records Request and no further action was taken." (Id . at 59a.)

Requester filed the request at issue on August 11, 2020 (Request), seeking electronic copies of "salary records for all [P]rothonotary employees from Jan[uary] 1, 2020, to present, showing name, salary, job title and length of service, including start and end dates." (Id. at 64a.) On August 14, 2020, County denied that Request, explaining:

Based upon statutory language and case law, the records you are seeking are records of a judicial agency. Under the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, court prothonotaries and their employees are personnel of the unified judicial system [(UJS)]. [Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 102,] Pa.R.J.A. [ ] 102. Frazier v. Phila. C [nty .] Off [.] of the Prothonotary , 58 A.3d 858, 859 [(Pa. Cmwlth.] 2012[)]. Further, their records are deemed judicial records.^[3]

The fact that a county pays an employee's salary who works in a judicial office "does not affect his status as a judicial employee[.]"[ ] County of Lehigh v. P [a. ] Lab [.] Rels [.] B [d. ], 489 A.2d 1325, 1327 (1985). The Open Records Office has routinely denied such appeals as they do not have jurisdiction to hear such matters. ....

Where the record may also be in the possession of [ ] County does not of itself make it an agency record. Records may document an activity of more than one agency. Where such dual records are also under the control of the judicial agency and the rules of judicial administration would not permit disclosure of such records, they may not be disclosed.

In this instance, the Courts have held that permitting the judicial branch to maintain control over the records which are also considered records of the judicial agency is appropriate. The Courts have even enjoined a county from "exercising control over records of the judiciary" related to open records requests. C [t. ] of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Off [.] of Open Rec [s. ], 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) [( Lackawanna County )].

["]The location of the record or an agency's possession [of a record] does not guarantee that a record is accessible to the public; rather, the character of the record controls." Grine v. County of Centre , 138 A.3d 88[, 95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc )].

The Courts have also held that "to preserve the separation of powers, a requester was unable to access records

...