Title: Tribune-Review, et al., Aplt v. Bodack et al. (Concurring Opinion)

State: pennsylvania

Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Document:

[J-117-2008] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT TRIBUNE-REVIEW PUBLISHING COMPANY, A PENNSYLVANIA CORPORATION, AND ANDREW CONTE, AN INDIVIDUAL, Appellants v. LEONARD BODACK, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL, BARBARA BURNS, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF PITTSBURGH CITY COUNCIL, AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 24 WAP 2008 Appeal from the Order of Commonwealth Court entered May 2, 2005 at No. 427 CD 2004, reversing the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered February 18, 2004 at No. SA03- 1204. ARGUED: September 8, 2008 CONCURRING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: DECEMBER 18, 2008 Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I have some differences with its reasoning. Primarily, I would accord more weight to the public’s interest in disclosure of what is facially a public record. While the majority describes such interest as “weak, perhaps non-existent,” Majority Opinion, slip op. at 12, my thoughts are more in line with that of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which explained: [J-117-2008] - 2 At first glance, the question of whether the public should have access to the toll-billing telephone records of public officials under the Right-to-Know Law seems to answer itself. The public has paid for the telephone calls; the numbers called have been recorded on the bill that the public body has paid; the public should have the right to learn the identity of the person called by the public official. North Jersey Newspapers Co. v. Passaic County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 601 A.2d 693 (N.J. 1992). The court proceeded to emphasize the policy of openness in government and the interest of the citizenry in discovering abuses. See id. at 697. Although the New Jersey court ultimately determined that the telephone records at issue were not public records under New Jersey’s then-prevailing narrower definition, again, I agree with its treatment of the public interests involved. Indeed, after considering the competing public and private interests in issue, as well as the common- law right to access, the New Jersey Supreme Court did not establish a bright-line rule flatly requiring blanket redactions. Rather, it directed that relevant records were to be made available upon a specific showing that the public need outweighs the governmental policies of confidentiality in telephone communications and executive privilege. See id. at 698. The court also recognized the availability of an in camera review procedure in appropriate cases. See id. at 697; accord LaValle v. OGC, 564 Pa. 482, 498 n.14, 769 A.2d 449, 459 n.14 (2001).1 1 I also differ with the majority’s finding that disclosure would be “arbitrary” in light of suggested differences between land-line and cell phone bills. See Majority Opinion, slip op. at 11. The Pennsylvania Right to Know Act broadly defines public records as records “dealing with” the receipt or disbursement of funds or its use of equipment. See 65 P.S. §66.1. There is no basis in the statutory language for limiting public access based on the fact that information in an agency’s hands might not have reached it merely because some other medium might have been employed. [J-117-2008] - 3 I would adopt the New Jersey approach and join the result in the present case, because I find a sufficient specific showing to be lacking.