Published by Brad Flynn | December 15, 2023 | Updated June 13, 2024
ISSUED 02/24/2023 – Michael Long vs. Bath Borough
Synopsis:
Requestor sought financial documents and communications relating to the Borough, the mayor’s health insurance, and the borough manager’s employment contract. The Borough provided responsive records on appeal and proved that certain portions of the Request are insufficiently specific, certain records do not exist, and certain records do not exist in the requested format. The Borough failed to prove that certain portions of the Request are insufficiently specific and that certain financial records are exempt under Sections 708(b)(3), (b)(4), (b)(6), and (b)(11). The Office of Open Records declines to make a finding of bad faith. Granted in part, denied in part, dismissed in part, and dismissed as moot in part.
The Borough’s position as it related to certain financial records requested lacked specificity. For example, the Requestor sought: “Complete and detailed accounting of educational payout, vehicle expense reimbursement and any and all references to such compensation packages” of the Borough Manager. The Borough denied the Request because it did not specifically identify any record that documents a transaction or activity of the Borough that is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business or activity of the Borough. The Borough also maintained the information sought by the Requestor could be identified in documents received by the Requestor relative to Bath’s approved budgets for years 2016 through 2022. Line items for the requested items exist within the budget information. On appeal, the Office of Open Records disagreed with the Borough.
The Requestor sought broad documents related to the Borough’s IT invoices and Altronic’s security camera invoices. The Request was phrased as: “Any and all financial records as it related to any and all expenses exceeding $5,000 that was termed IT. This would include software, hardware, services as related to cameras made within the last 7 years.” The Borough’s position was the Request was not sufficiently specific. The Request did not identify a record of the Borough that documents a transaction or activity of the Borough that is created, received or retained pursuant to law or in connection with a transaction, business or activity of the Borough. In addition, the Borough maintained the Request did not identify a vendor or a narrow time period. Here again, the Borough pointed out the approved budget’s sought and received by the Requestor is responsive to this portion of the Request.
On appeal, the Borough compiled IT and Altronic’s invoices it could determine from performing an extensive review per the Request. The invoices contained detailed information relative to hardware and software, locations of critical equipment. The Borough redacted portions of invoice descriptions under Section 708(b)(3) of the RTKL. This is because the Borough’s position was that disclosure of such information could create a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety of the Borough’s information storage system because the records included information relating to the Borough’s computer hardware, software and system networks that could jeopardize computer security by exposing a vulnerability in preventing, protecting against, mitigating or responding to a terrorist act. Further, the Borough’s position was that the Borough’s computer hardware, software and networks, including administrative or technical records, which, if disclosed, would reasonably jeopardize computer security (Section 708(b)(4) of the RTKL). Finally, the Borough maintained the records constituted or could reveal trade secrets or confidential proprietary information, also exempt from public access (Section 708(b)(11) of the RTKL). The Borough’s IT vendor also provided professional expertise supporting these facts with an affidavit. The Office of Open Records disagreed with the redaction of IT invoices.
On Final Determination, the Borough provided the Requestor: 1) the General Fund items relative to “Transaction Detail by Account” for subcategories, 401.17 – Vehicle/Gasoline Stipend/Exp and 401.18 – Educational Expense for 2016 up through September 2022; and 2) unredacted versions of the Altronic’s and Drivelocker, LLC contracts and invoices of Drivelocker, LLC which were already provided to Requestor in redacted form. Total of 48 additional records released.
PARTIALLY GRANTED/PARTIALLY DENIED
