Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the Law, which excepts from the general requirement for disclosure of public records:
A record that reflects:
(A) The internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or officials or…
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds that Communications between Agencies and their Consultants are not Exempt under the Internal, Predecisional Deliberation Exception
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., (412) 594-5580, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com
Highlands School District v. Rittmeyer, — A.3d –, 2020 WL 7061810, 163 C.D. 2020 (Pa. Commw. Dec. 3, 2020). Commonwealth Court holds that school districts are not required to disclose the names of…
Continue Reading School Districts Are Not Required To Identify Employees Who Are Subject To Discipline Unless And Until They Are Demoted Or Discharged
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., (412) 594-5580, cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com
As an elected school board member, you are looked to as a community leader and are expected to take a leadership role in representing your school district’s interests. In fulfilling this role, many…
Continue Reading What Every School Board Member Should Know Before Using Social Media
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
On Thursday, June 10, Attorney Christopher L. Voltz will help public officials understand the challenges of communicating through digital means at a live webinar hosted by the Local Government Academy. Chris will…
Continue Reading Christopher Voltz to present – The Accidental Meeting: Emails, Text Messages and Social Media Posts under the Sunshine Act and the RTKL
Christopher L. Voltz, Esq., cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com, (412) 594-5580
Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Miller, 232 A.3d 716 (Pa. 2020). Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that images of students in a school bus surveillance video are “educational records” under FERPA and…
Continue Reading Images of Students must be Removed from School Bus Surveillance Video when Responding to a Request for Records Under the Right-To-Know Law
In Anonymous v. Norristown Municipality, AP 2020-2496, the Municipality received a request for records about a police officer from a Requester identified only as “E3E3” that was sent from admin@e3e3.com. The Municipality denied the Request and…
Continue Reading OOR Confirms that Local Agencies are not Required to Respond to Anonymous RTKL Requests
In Anonymous v. Norristown Municipality, AP 2020-2496, the Municipality received a request for records about a police officer from a Requester identified only as “E3E3” that was sent from admin@e3e3.com. The Municipality denied the Request and…
Continue Reading OOR Confirms that Local Agencies are not Required to Respond to Anonymous RTKL Requests
In Rosner v. Buckingham Township, AP 2020-1364 (“Rosner II”), the Township redacted residents’ names, home addresses, and tax map parcel I.D. numbers from the requested invoices setting forth charges to residents under the Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance…
Continue Reading OOR Continues to Hold that Names and Home Addresses Are Protected by the Constitutional Right to Privacy, but that Tax Map Parcel I.D. Numbers Are Not Protected
In Rosner v. Buckingham Township, AP 2020-1364 (“Rosner II”), the Township redacted residents’ names, home addresses, and tax map parcel I.D. numbers from the requested invoices setting forth charges to residents under the Township’s Stormwater Management Ordinance…
Continue Reading OOR Continues to Hold that Names and Home Addresses Are Protected by the Constitutional Right to Privacy, but that Tax Map Parcel I.D. Numbers Are Not Protected
In Rosner v. Buckingham Township, AP 2020-0623 (“Rosner I”), the request sought Stormwater Management Agreements and Grant of Easement Agreements relating to certain properties within the Township. The Township redacted the names and home addresses from residents…
Continue Reading OOR Holds that Individual Names and Addresses contained in Stormwater Management Agreements and Grant of Easement Agreements Are Not Protected by the Constitutional Right to Privacy
