•  
  •  
 

Widener Commonwealth Law Review

Abstract

For decades, the size of government in the United States has grown. Simultaneously, technology has created a more informed, and more interested, general public. The Pennsylvania legislature responded to ever increasing requests for information by expanding transparency in government and access to records through the Right to Know Law (RTKL). Every Pennsylvania agency is required to have an open-records officer. The open-records officer is the agency representative tasked with receiving and responding to RTKL requests, including the decision of whether the agency provides or denies the requested record. Not surprisingly, questions regarding a government agency’s failure to provide documents are common, and the requestor can appeal the decision to the Office of Open Records (OOR), then possibly to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania for further consideration. In the case of Alternatives v. Department of Human Services, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania considered the question of what third-party records, pursuant to a state grant or contract, are accessible under the RTKL. The Alternatives case is important for Pennsylvania administrative law because it creates a veil that protects third-party service providers from disclosure under the RTKL if the entity contracting (or entering into a grant agreement) with the government can demonstrate that the service providers perform services beyond what is included in the contract or grant agreement. This survey commences with Part II, which provides the relevant statutory provisions and cases on the topic. Part III of the survey explains the facts, decisions, and progression of Alternatives. Part IV of this survey includes an evaluation of the impacts of the decision in the case. Finally, closing thoughts and a conclusion can be found in Part V.

Download

Share

COinS