HARRISBURG — A summer of negotiation awaits two bills that would make major changes to the 14-year-old state Right-to-Know Law.

Sen. David Argall, R-Schuylkill, majority chairman of the Senate State Government Committee, said Tuesday he would hold discussions with interested parties concerning amendments to House Bill 2524 — which already passed the House — and Senate Bill 492.

HB2524, sponsored by Rep. Lou Schmitt, R-Blair, makes a number of changes to the RTK law, such as allowing government agencies to ask a requester if records will be used for commercial purposes and giving them the ability to charge standard fees for commercial requests.

The bill would include local economic development organizations under the RTK law while saying that volunteer ambulance, fire and rescue services aren’t subject to the law.

The House bill would let a government seek through the state Office of Open Records to declare an individual a “vexatious requester” on grounds they are tying to annoy or harass and, therefore, ignore their RTK requests.

A “vexatious requester is a person, who by the person’s conduct, demonstrates an intent to annoy or harass a local agency. An individual may not be found to be a vexatious requester solely due to the number of requests they have filed or the number of records sought,” HB2524 reads.

SB492, sponsored by state Sen. Doug Mastriano, R-Franklin, would bring the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, state-related universities and economic development organizations under the scope of the RTK law.

The Senate bill would also make public police blotter information and information about 911 calls. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court said recently it would hear an appeal sought by PIAA of a Commonwealth Court decision that the association is subject to the law.

Two statewide associations representing local governments oppose the House bill.

“Though HB 2524 would make numerous changes to the Right-to-Know Law, including addressing some topics of great concern to local governments, it does not accomplish pressing issues of importance to local governments in a way that provides needed relief,” said Ashley Lenker-White, director of government relations at the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania on Tuesday. “One example of this is providing broad and problematic exemptions to companies that would otherwise fall under the definition of commercial requester and requiring local agencies to prove that a requester’s intent is to harass an agency to be considered vexatious.”

HB2524 doesn’t address situations in which a requester reformats data provided by an agency and then provides it to subscribers under a fee-based service, and it creates exceptions rendering the commercial requestor status useless for some scientific institutions and real estate records used for real estate purposes, the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania said in committee testimony.

“Although House Bill 2524 is intended to provide, among many other things, the relief long sought by school boards and other local government agencies for commercial and vexatious requesters, it completely fails to provide meaningful and effective relief which local agencies can use, and in some cases creates new problems with the law,” testified Jonathan Berger, senior director of government relations for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

The bill’s definition of “commercial purpose” doesn’t include requests relating to current contract information that the requester can then use in future bidding, Mr. Berger said.

The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania and Pennsylvania School Boards Association have  bothurged lawmakers to instead advance SB552, dealing with vexatious requesters, and SB312, dealing with commercial requestors.

Office of Open Records officials said they are dealing with a record-breaking number of RTK case appeals, which carries implications for any new vexatious requester procedure.

“It requires the creation of an entirely new quasi-judicial process which would necessitate additional collection of evidence and arguments from the parties. At this time, the OOR would likely be unable to decide any more than two complaints per month,” testified OOR executive director Liz Wagenseller.

First Published: July 4, 2022, 10:00 a.m.