Court Opinion

ID: 9700124
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:11:37.635367+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:04.815547
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I must respectfully dissent. I believe that the majority opinion here unnecessarily departs from the inclusive concept of “public record” which we have applied in Friedman v. Fumo, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 609, 309 A.2d 75 (1973) and again more recently in Young v. Armstrong School District, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 203, 344 A.2d 738 (1975). Under these decisions I believe that a teacher’s personnel records are “public records” subject to inspection and examination as provided by the “Right to Know Act,” Act of June 21, 1957, P. L. 390, as amended, 65 P. S. §66.1 et seq. The Act carefully lists exceptions to its disclosure rule, and it would appear to me that, where, as here, the records do not clearly fall within one of these exceptions, the inclusive interpretation of “public record” that we have applied in our prior decisions best advances the spirit of the Act which I believe is designed to insure that the records of public agencies are always open to public scrutiny.
I would reverse the final order and judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County and would permit Michael Homiek to examine and inspect his personnel records with the West Shore School District.
Judge Rogers joins in this dissent.