Court Opinion

ID: 9639046
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 16:02:44.433969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:11.716209
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge FRIEDMAN.
I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the State Employees’ Retirement Board (Board) properly granted the Right to Know Act1 (RTKA) request of The Patriot-News Company (PNC) and Jan Murphy (Murphy), who sought to learn the salaries, salary histories and years of credited service for the following employees of The Pennsylvania State University (PSU) who are also members of the State Employees Retirement System (SERS): Richard Althouse; Rodney A. Erickson; Joseph V. Paterno; and Gary C. Schultz (collectively, Employees). I cannot agree with this holding.
I. “Public Records”
Citizens of the Commonwealth have the right to examine an agency’s “public records,” which include any “account ... or contract dealing with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency....” Sections 1 & 2 of the RTKA, 65 P.S. §§ 66.1-66.2. A citizen seeking to examine an agency’s records must establish a close connection between the material sought and these categories. LaValle v. Office of General Counsel, 564 Pa. 482, 769 A.2d 449 (2001).
I agree with the majority that PNC and Murphy, the citizens here, established a close connection between Employees’ salaries, salary histories and years of credited service and an account or contract dealing with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency. I also agree that this close connection, by itself, does not conclusively establish that the information sought constitutes a “public record” under the RTKA. A citizen also must establish that none of the exceptions set forth in the definition of “public records” applies.
Relevant here, the term “public record” does not include a record which “would operate to the prejudice or impairment of a person’s ... personal security....” 2 65 P.S. § 66.1. As the majority indicates, a threat to a person’s personal security may involve a threat to the person’s constitutional right to privacy. (Majority op. at 767); see also Times Publishing Company v. Michel, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 398, 683 A.2d 1233 (1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 618, 645 A.2d 1321 (1994). Where that is the case, a court must weigh a person’s privacy interests and the extent to which they may be invaded against the public benefit *770which would result from public disclosure.3 Id.
II. Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
A person has a constitutionally-protected expectation of privacy where the person has exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy and where society is prepared to recognize that expectation of privacy as reasonable. Commonwealth v. Rekasie, 566 Pa. 85, 778 A.2d 624 (2001). In this regard, the Board made the following findings of fact:
39. It is PSU’s practice and policy to preserve the confidentiality and privacy, to the maximum extent possible, of its employees’ salaries and other personal financial information.
40. PSU refuses to release employee salary information when requests for that information are received from third parties.
41. PSU’s practice and policy regarding nondisclosure of its employees’ personal financial information has been, over time, relied upon by PSU employees such that those employees, including the Individual Respondents, expect and anticipate that PSU will, to the maximum extent possible, maintain and preserve the privacy and confidentiality of their salaries and personal financial information.
42. Specifically, [Employees] subjectively expect that their salaries and other personal financial information will not be disclosed or otherwise shared with third parties. Ms. Murphy, SERS and PNC dispute that this expectation is reasonable under the circumstances.
(Board’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 39 — 42.) Thus, there is no question that Employees have exhibited an actual, subjective expectation of privacy in their salaries, salary histories and years of credited service. The only question is whether Employees’ actual, subjective expectation of privacy should be recognized as reasonable.
A. Paterno
First, with respect to Paterno, the Board found that Paterno has been a member of SERS since July 1, 1950, (Board’s Findings of Fact, No. 5), almost seven years prior to the enactment of the RTKA on June 21, 1957. However, ignoring the date when Paterno became a member of SERS, the majority states:
Before Employees [including Paterno] became members of SERS they were put on notice that their compensation information was subject to disclosure .... [Thus,] [a]ny privacy right Employees [including Paterno] may have had in their personal salaries was extinguished when they voluntarily contracted to participate in a government program managed by a public agency for which compensation disclosure is required by law.
(Majority op. at 767-68.) Inasmuch as the RTKA did not exist, Paterno was not put on notice before he became a member of SERS that his compensation information was subject to disclosure. Thus, there is no basis for the majority’s conclusion that Paterno’s privacy right was extinguished when he voluntarily became a member of SERS in 1950. Under such circumstances, I submit that Paterno’s expectation of privacy should be recognized as reasonable.
*771B. “State Employees”
Second, under section 5102 of the Retirement Code, Employees are “state employees” for the purposes of the Retirement Code. 71 Pa.C.S. § 5102. However, Employees are not state employees for the purposes of section 614 of The Administrative Code of 1929,4 which makes the salaries and employment histories of certain employees public information.
Section 614 of the Administrative Code provides as follows: (1) administrative departments, boards and commissions shall transmit to the Auditor General, State Treasurer and Secretary of the Budget a list of all persons entitled to receive compensation from the Commonwealth for services rendered; (2) the list shall include the person’s salary and employment history with the Commonwealth; and (3) the information received shall be public information. 71 P.S. § 234. PSU is not an administrative department, board or commission; therefore, PSU is not required to transmit Employee information to anyone under section 614 of the Administrative Code. Thus, no PSU employee information is public information under section 614 of the Administrative Code.
The majority states:
This Court recognizes that outside of SERS, Employees are employees of a state-related agency, as opposed to a state agency. For the purpose of consistency, this Court must consider Employees state employees for purposes of deciding whether the exceptions [to the RTKA] apply. Simply put, Employees are not entitled to the best of both worlds.
(Majority op. at 767) (emphasis in original). However, the Retirement Code clearly states that its definition of “state employee” applies only to the Retirement Code and section 614 of the Administrative Code clearly excludes Employees from those employees whose salaries are public information. Moreover, although the majority states that this court must consider Employees to be the same as every other state employee, Employees are not the same as other state employees because they work for a non-state agency and receive only a portion of their salaries from tax dollars.5
Accordingly, I would recognize Employees’ expectation of privacy in their salaries, salary histories and years of credited service as reasonable.
C. PSU and the RTKA
Third, a citizen could not obtain Employees’ salaries, salary histories or years of credited service from PSU under the RTKA. See Pennsylvania State University v. Derry Toimiship School District, 557 Pa. 91, 731 A.2d 1272 (1999) (citing Roy v. Pennsylvania State University, 130 Pa.Cmwlth. 468, 568 A.2d 751 (1990)).
In ascertaining whether Employees’ salaries, salary histories and years of credited service fall within the meaning of “public record” in the RTKA, we must presume that the General Assembly does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable. Section 1922(1) of the Statutory Construc*772tion Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1). To me, it is absurd that the RTKA would preclude a citizen from obtaining Employee information from PSU while allowing a citizen to obtain the same information from SERS. Thus, I would not construe the meaning of “public record” to permit such a result. In my view, the only reasonable construction of the RTKA would ensure that information unavailable from PSU under the statute also would be unavailable from SERS under the statute.
Accordingly, I would recognize Employees’ expectation of privacy in their salaries, salary histories and years of credited service as reasonable.
D. Personnel Files Act and the RTKA
Fourth, this court has held that a public employee’s personnel file is not a “public record” under the RTKA and that the Act known as the Personnel Files Act6 does not permit a citizen to inspect a public employee’s personnel file. See Bangor Area Education Association v. Angle, 720 A.2d 198 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), aff'd, 561 Pa. 305, 750 A.2d 282 (2000).
The Personnel Files Act provides that: (1) a “personnel file” includes a file containing an employee’s salary and employment history, 43 P.S. § 1321; (2) an employee who wishes to inspect his or her own personnel file may be required to submit a written request so that the employer can verify the identity of the requester before providing access to the personnel file, 43 P.S. § 1322; and (3) the “employers” covered by the statute include the Commonwealth and its agencies, authorities, boards or commissions, 43 P.S. § 1321.
Thus, the RTKA and Personnel Files Act both prohibit a citizen from obtaining the salary and employment history of a Commonwealth employee from a personnel file. However, under the majority’s holding, a citizen can obtain the same information from SERS under the RTKA. As indicated above, I consider such a result to be absurd. It is equally absurd that any citizen can obtain any state employee’s personnel file information from SERS, but a state employee cannot obtain his or her own information from the Commonwealth’s (employer) personnel department without submitting a written request. Moreover, I note that the purpose of the written request is to prevent disclosure of personnel file information to any citizen other than the employee.
Moreover, statutes in pari materia must be construed together as one statute. Section 1932(b) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932(b). Statutes or parts of statutes are in pari materia when they relate to the same persons or things. Section 1932(a) of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972, 1 Pa.C.S. § 1932(a). Here, the RTKA and the Personnel Files Act are in pari materia because both relate to the public availability of employee information. Therefore, the RTKA and the Personnel Files Act must be construed as one statute. Doing so here, we see that information that impairs a person’s privacy is not a “public record,” and personnel file information, including salary and employment history, is private. Thus, unless there is a public benefit which outweighs the privacy interest, an employee’s salary and employment history cannot be a “public record.”
Accordingly, I would recognize Employees’ expectation of privacy in their salaries, salary histories and years of credited service as reasonable.
III. Public Benefit
Having concluded that Employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their *773salaries, salary histories and years of credited service, it is necessary to weigh Employees’ privacy interest against the public benefit of disclosure. In this regard, the state may disclose private information where: (1) the state has a compelling interest; (2) the disclosure will effect its purpose; and (8) there is no alternate reasonable method of lesser intrusiveness. In re T.R., 557 Pa. 99, 731 A.2d 1276 (1999); Denoncourt v. Commonwealth State Ethics Commission, 504 Pa. 191, 470 A.2d 945 (1983).
The majority states, Access to this information [referring only to salary information 7] allows the public to meaningfully evaluate the wisdom and appropriateness of these state appropriations [to PSU].” (Majority op. at 16.) However, the public would not know merely from the disclosure of Employees’ salaries whether the state appropriations to PSU are wise and appropriate. Only a portion of PSU s state appropriation pays employee salaries, (Board’s Findings of Fact, No. 59), and the public would not know whether Employees, in particular, received any more than a penny from the state appropriation.8 Thus, the public disclosure of Employees’ salaries would not effect the majority’s stated purpose.
Accordingly, unlike the majority, I would reverse.
Judge COHN JUBELIRER joins in this dissent.

. Act of June 21, 1957, P.L. 390, as amended, 65 P.S. § 66.1-66.4, commonly known as the Right to Know Act (RTKA). I note that, in this case, the RTKA request was made on December 19, 2002, and the RTKA was amended on June 29, 2002, effective December 26, 2002, 180 days later. Thus, the request was made before the effective date of the current RTKA.

. As the majority properly points out, this court has defined “personal security” to include freedom from anxiety. (Majority op. at 767) (citing Times Publishing Company v. Michel, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 398, 633 A.2d 1233 (1993), appeal denied, 538 Pa. 618, 645 A.2d 1321 (1994)).

. The majority states that, under Moak v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 599, 336 A.2d 920 (1975), the disclosure of information must be intrinsically harmful to fall within the personal security exception to the RTKA. (Majority op. at 767.) However, this court has rejected Moak as contrary to our supreme court’s holding in Denoncourt v. Commonwealth State Ethics Commission, 504 Pa. 191, 470 A.2d 945 (1983). See Tribune-Review Publishing Company v. Bodack, 875 A.2d 402 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005).

. Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 177, added by the Act of September 27, 1978, P.L. 775, as amended, 71 P.S. § 234.

. The Board found that PSU uses "a portion” of its state appropriation to pay employee salaries. (See Board’s Findings of Fact, No. 59.) Moreover, in Pennsylvania State University v. Deny Township School District, 557 Pa. 91, 94, 731 A.2d 1272, 1273 (1999), our supreme court stated, "[S]tate appropriations have decreased as a percentage of total [PSU] revenues, resulting in the fact that [PSU’s] principal means of support are no longer state and federal funds but private and federal funds.”

. Act of November 26, 1978, P.L. 1212, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 1321-1324.

. The majority does not identify any state interest in the disclosure of Employees’ salary histories or years of credited service.

. For the 2003-2004 fiscal year, PSU estimated that the state appropriation would be $306.5 million towards its budget of $2.6 billion. (Board’s Findings of Fact, No. 57.) Using this estimate, the state appropriation is approximately 11.8% of PSU’s budget. However, there is no finding that PSU uses the state appropriation to pay any specific portion of Employees’ salaries.