Court Opinion

ID: 9731476
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:46:53.606471+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:18.469160
License: Public Domain

McGINLEY, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I do not agree with the majority that the applicants’ telephone numbers, social security numbers and addresses fall within the personal security exception to the Act. In Mergenthaler v. State Employee’s Retirement Board, 33 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 237, 372 A.2d 944 (1977), we reviewed our previous decisions in Kanzelmeyer, Moak and Young (cited in majority opinion) and held that the names and addresses of state retirees did not fall within the personal security exception, noting that the records requested cannot be said to place retirees in a state of fear, harm, danger, fear of anxiety, nor are they intrinsically harmful.... Id. at 245, 372 A.2d at 947-48. In the present case the addresses, telephone numbers, and social security numbers1 of applicants are facially benign and do not in and of themselves threaten *414the applicants’ personal security or reputation and thus do not fall within the exception. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court and permit their disclosure.
PALLADINO and PELLEGRINI, JJ., join in this dissent.

. None of the cases regarding telephone or social security numbers set forth on pages 406-409 of the majority’s opinion involve the issue of whether this information comes within the personal security exception to the Right to Know Act. Rather the issue explored in these cases involves the constitutional right to privacy. Here, no constitutional challenge to the Act was properly raised before the trial court. See majority opinion at 412, n. 8. I believe the cases relied upon in the majority opinion are inapplicable to the present controversy and the majority is obliquely declaring the Act unconstitutional.