Court Opinion

ID: 9761299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:37:44.409424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:21.827076
License: Public Domain

*226Concurring Opinion by
Judge MacPhail:
In Lewis v. Thornburgh, 68 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 157, 453 A.2d 388 (1982), I dissented to that part of the majority opinion which held the issue before the Court to be justiciable. Nothing that has happened 'in this case since it first came before us has changed my mind in this regard. If anything, what appears in the majority opinion today reenforces what I wrote a year ago. The information the Petitioner seeks is available.1 I remain unconvinced that the Petitioner seeks the information solely for budgetary purposes.2 By the same token, had the executive branch immediately supplied the information requested since it is a matter of public information, this Court. would have been spared valuable judicial time3 in resolving the issue. As I said before, my concern is not so much with the resolution of this case as it is with the precedent that it sets for the future.
Since, however, the law of the case is contrary to my view, and the majority opinion has correctly treated the exceptions to the learned Chancellor’s findings and conclusions, I am compelled to concur in the result.

 See Findings of Fact 8(a), slip opinion page 10 and 8(c) slip opinion page 11. The fact that it would present a “very difficult challenge” to select out attorney and legal counsel positions does not impress me. What is clear is that the information is available without resort to legal remedies.

 Much was made at oral argument of the omission of the so-called Kauffman contract. One wonders how the Petitioner came upon this information if it is so difficult for him to obtain it except by means of this law suit.

 Three extensive opinions have been written by this Court on this matter.