Court Opinion

ID: 9693839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:03:01.719552+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:50.949400
License: Public Domain

CAPPY, Justice,
dissenting.
Because I do not agree that the records at issue in this matter are “public records” as defined in The Right to Know Act, 65 P.S. § 66.1,1 respectfully dissent.
The Right to Know Act, in pertinent part, defines “public record” as: “[a]ny account, voucher or contract dealing with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency ...” 65 P.S. § 66.1. The records in question here are payroll records of a private contractor. Those records contain the names and *114addresses of Appellant’s workers who performed work on three roofing projects for the Northern Hills School District, their social security numbers, job position, rates of pay and the hours worked on the projects. As noted by the Majority, such payroll records are required to be kept by the contractor under the Prevailing Wage Act, 43 P.S. § 165-6. The Prevailing Wage Act at 43 P.S. § 165-10 further provides that before final payment may be made by or on behalf of a public body for work performed under a contract with that public body, the public body is to obtain statements from the contractor certifying to any unpaid wages due and owing from that contractor to its workers and naming the persons whose wages are unpaid together with the specific amounts due each such person. This particular section deals not with any actual disbursements of monies by the public agency or even a request for the public agency to disburse funds, but rather deals with the record keeping or compliance responsibilities of the public body and the contractor.
There is nothing in this section which would indicate that the required certifications equate to an “account, voucher or contract” evidencing a disbursement of funds by the public agency or that the filing of such certifications propels a disbursement by the public agency for such amounts so as to render the payroll records “public” and thus, obtainable under the Right to Know Act. Indeed, it more clearly addresses monies owed by the contractor and/or subcontractor to their workers and not amounts owed by the public agency. These payroll records constitute neither a record of any business dealings or transactions between Appellant and the School District; accordingly, they are neither a “voucher” nor an “account.” And, they certainly do not evidence any “contract” between the School District and Appellant.
In short, I do not believe that the payroll records in question evidence any disbursements or agreements to disburse monies by the School District and that, therefore, it was error for the lower courts to permit the Union access to those records under the guise of The Right to Know Act.