COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LUZERNE...

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LUZERNE COUNTY.

FRANK SORICK,

Petitioner,

CITY OF WILKES BARRE.

Respondent.

) ) ) Docket NO. 2O /L' 6O 2 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

RULE TO SHOW CAUSE

AND NOW, this 6 day of ,1 , 2014, upon

consideration of the foregoing Petition to Review, Court hereby grants a Rule

upon Plaintiffs to show cause why the Decision made by the OOR Appeals Officer

should not be overturned and the requested documents provided to the Petitioner.

Rule returnable this 9day of , 201-4, at

qs3 f3.M., Courtroom No d Luzerne Cou y Court House.

BY THE COURT:

/4 .1.1 4. cYm6 LI

J.


)

FRANK SORICK, ) WILKES BARRE CITY TAXPAYERS ) 1-3 cz,

5-

) Docket NO. 10 I y - Petitioner, )

) v. )

) CITY OF WILKES BARRE, )

) Respondent. ) )

PETTITION FOR REVIEW of FINAL DETERMINATION OF OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RIGHT TO KNOW LAW, 65 Pa.C.S. § 67.1302

This Petition for Review arises from a Final Determination of the Office of Open

Records (OOR) and is brought under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §

67A 01 et seq. Petitioner seeks Review of an OOR Final Determination denying

Petitioner's request for Respondent to produce certain records.

1. Petitioner seeks review of a Final Determination from the Pennsylvania Office of

Open Records (OOR), which denied Petitioner's request to produce certain

records by Respondent. That Final Determination, Sorick v. City of Wilkes

Barre, OOR Dkt. AP 2014-0417, which is attached to this Petition as Exhibit A,

denying Petitioner's request for a letter/voucher for a fine levied upon

Respondent.

2. When records have been requested of a "local agency," such as the City of

Wilkes Barre, Section 1302 of the Right-to-Know Law grants jurisdiction of the

ASSOCIATION, )

Page 1 of 9

Courts of Common Pleas for judicial review of OOR Final Determinations 65

Pa.C.S. § 67.1302(a).

3. Petitioner requested all documents including a letter from the Pennsylvania

Department of Revenue (hereinafter "Revenue") to the Respondent concerning a

fine and penalties and other orders to Respondent from Revenue.

4. Respondent provided a copy of a spreadsheet and a copy of a check and stated

that is all they had received from Revenue. (Exhibit B)

5. Petitioner appealed stating that the letter from Revenue was missing from the

response. (Exhibit C)

6. Respondent answered appeal to OOR with and affidavit sworn by Marie

McCormick, City Administrator stating that she had spoken to "someone" from

the Department of Revenue and that no letter existed. (Exhibit D)

7. Petitioner submitted his own affidavit to OOR stating that he had spoken to

Elizabeth Prestel, Press Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue

and that Ms. Prestel confirmed the existence of the letter. (Exhibit E)

8. Ms. Prestel stated that only the taxpayer, Respondent, could request a copy of the

letter and advised Petitioner to request letter from the taxpayer/Respondent.

9. The Respondent was and is in constructive possession of said letter as it may

request it and provide it to Petitioner as required by OOR case law and previous

rulings.

10. The Appeals Officer in this case acknowledged both affidavits in his written

decision.

Page 2 of 9

11. The Appeals Officer wrote in his decision that "an affidavit may serve as

sufficient evidentiary support for an assertion. (emphasis added) (Exhibit A, page

4, paragraph 3)

12. Despite Petitioner's affidavit in which he named a person from Revenue that he

spoke to who stated that such a letter did in fact exist, The Appeals Officer found

that "Based on the material provided, the City has met its burden of proof that it

has provided all responsive records to the Requester and that no other documents

exist." (Exhibit E, page 4, paragraph 3)

13. Petitioner respectfully disagrees Since there are opposing affidavits, Appeals

Officer erred and Appeal Officer determined that the Respondent's affidavit

"shall" (instead of "may") serve as evidentiary proof ignoring Petitioner's

affidavit.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner requests that this Honorable Court;

a) Overturn OOR Determination and Order City and/or Department of Revenue to

give Petitioner the requested letter, or

b) Order that discovery commence and depositions be taken in this case.

May , 2013 Respectfully submitted,

FrvpotiA

Frank Sorick Petitioner Pro Se

Page 3 of 9

VERIFICATION

I, Frank Sorick, petitioner herein, verify that the foregoing information is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I understand that my statements are made

subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, which relates to unsworn falsification to

authorities.


Page 4 of 9


)

FRANK SORICK, ) ) Docket NO. cM/ — (i (2 7

Petitioner,

v.

) ) ) ra

) CITY OF WILKES BARRE, )

) Respondent. )

)

BRIEF ON PETTITION FOR REVIEW of FINAL DETERMINATION OF OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS

OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RIGHT TO KNOW LAW, 65 Pa.C.S. § 67.1302

This Brief for Petition for Review arises from a Final Determination of the Office of

Open Records (OOR) and is brought under the Pennsylvania Right to Know Law, 65 Pa.C.S. §

67.101 et seq. Petitioner seeks Review of an OOR Final Determination denying Petitioner's

request for Respondent to produce certain records.

Petitioner seeks review of a Final Determination from the Pennsylvania Office of Open

Records (OOR), which denied Petitioner's request to produce certain records by Respondent.

That Final Determination, Sorick v. City of Wilkes Barre, OOR Dkt. AP 2014-0417, which is

attached to this Petition as Exhibit A, denying Petitioner's request for a letter/voucher for a fine

levied upon Respondent. When records have been requested of a "local agency," such as the City

of Wilkes Barre, Section 1302 of the Right-to-Know Law grants jurisdiction of the Courts of

Common Pleas for judicial review of OOR Final Determinations 65 Pa.C.S. § 67.1302(a).

Petitioner requested all documents including a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of

Revenue (hereinafter "Revenue") to the Respondent concerning a fine and penalties and other

orders to Respondent from Revenue. Respondent provided a copy of a spreadsheet and a copy of

a check and stated that is all they had received from Revenue. (Exhibit B) Petitioner appealed

stating that the letter from Revenue was missing from the response. (Exhibit C)

Respondent answered appeal to OOR with and affidavit sworn by Marie McCormick,

City Administrator stating that she had spoken to "someone" from the Department of Revenue

and that no letter existed. (Exhibit D)

Petitioner submitted his own affidavit to OOR stating that he had spoken to Elizabeth

Prestel, Press Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue and that Ms. Prestel

confirmed the existence of the letter. (Exhibit E) Ms. Prestel stated that only the taxpayer,

Respondent, could request a copy of the letter and advised Petitioner to request letter from the

taxpayer/Respondent.

The Respondent was and is in constructive possession of said letter as it may request it

and provide it to Petitioner as required by OOR case law and previous rulings. The Appeals

Officer in this case acknowledged both affidavits in his written decision.

The Appeals Officer wrote in his decision that "an affidavit may serve as sufficient

evidentiary support for an assertion. (emphasis added) (Exhibit A, page 4, paragraph 3) The

decision does not state that the affidavit SHALL serve as sufficient evidentiary support for an

assertion. Petitioner believes that this MAY be true if no evidence is to the contrary. This is not

true in the instance case. There are differing and contradicting affidavits and the Appeals

Officers did not even discuss that situation.

Petitioner believes that a "trier of fact" should determine whether a "voucher" in this case

letter demanding payment by the Respondent does in fact exist by determining if Respondent's

affidavit is in fact true or merely a deceptive answer. This is not the first time the respondent

swore an affidavit and it proved to be false. In Wielgosz v. Wilkes-Bane City, Ms. McCormick

submitted an affidavit to the OOR stating that the requested credit card statements did not exist.

At the hearing Mr Wielgosz produced the statements that the affidavit swore did not exist.

Attached is the Citizens Voice story on the said credit card statements. (Exhibit B1)

This letter whether in the hands of the City or the Commonwealth Department of

Revenue is a voucher for payment of fines and penalties by the City and is subject to the Open

Records Act and should be provided to petitioner.

May °-) ,2014 Respectfully submitted,


11111,141___

pennsylvania OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS Mayor Thomas M. Leighton

RIGHT-TO-KNOW REQUEST FORM

DATE SUBMITTED: 3/4/2014

REQUEST SUBMITTED BY:

NAME OF REQUESTOR: Frank R Sorick or Wilkes Bane Taxpayers Association

STREET ADDRESS: 125 Waller Street

CITY/STATE/COUNTY (Required): Wilkes Barre / PA / Luzerne County / 18702

TELEPHONE (Optional): (570) 574-6395

RECORDS REQUESTED: *Provide as much specific detail as possible so the agency can identify the information.

Please provide all documents including bills/ invoices/ letters from the Pa Dept. of Revenue to the City of Wilkes-Barre which generated the Wilkes-Barre City check number 001043914 to be issued to the Pa. Department of Revenue on 8/6/2009 in the amount of $5,316.92 by the City of Wilkes-Barre.

DO YOU WANT COPIES? YES

DO YOU WANT TO INSPECT THE RECORDS? YES

RIGHT TO KNOW OFFICER: Margaret Sharksnas

DATE RECEIVED BY AGENCY:

AGENCY FIVE (5)-DAY RESPONSE DUE:

*FORWARDED TO R-T-K OFFICER BY:

(to be filled out by city official who received the request)

**NOTE: PLEASE BRING REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OR FAX IT TO 570-208-4171 (do not place in office mailbox)

***Public bodies may fill anonymous verbal or written requests. If the requestor wishes to pursue the relief and remedies provided for in this Act, the request must be in writing. (Section 702.) Written requests need not include an explanation why information is being sought or the intended use of the information unless otherwise required by law (Section 703.)

8111

I11X

1

City of Wilkes-Barre

001043914 PA014 Pa. Department of Revenue

0000048351

81872009 *ex trivet c • ,

0000080226 re v ofrc I , eu crit Se,.

SAS USAGE 07-09 !rev •oAr.v ..,,

8/5/2009 FNIO,C,9 -7.1159 , 49,9

55.216.92

r7-- t,... its: nn.

...3 , 07,737147,15.

55 316.92 I 0009 . 1 7

50,00 WRITE Ott

50.00

-...

107 110097 55,9

$5.316.92

. tc ils1.-r^ - to AA en AA rc al.L an

Pat 3757 0 01 0 4 3 9 1 4 3,79 isttt,

77 It. 031110

,. 555;..8159

ro , , 9.7

8/6/2009

k"41 '" * **S 3 1 6 e 9 2

Five Thousand Those Hundred Sixteen C3oilers. And 92 COATS

Pa Dopertment of Revenue At1n Neil Hoch*eiter Bureau of Motor Fuel Taxes 100 Soft Uniom St Suite 202 Wilkes-Rafre PA 16701

City of Wilkes-Barre General Fund - 001 40 East Market Street Wilkes-Sarre, Pa 15711

.84 C,

Gas

January-07 3801

February-07 F 2137.94,$

March-07 303.1

Aprii-67 341.2

Tax Due $ 118.59

_64.88

$ 9455 i" -- ibb:4-6

Interest $ 19.93--$ $ 10,50 $ 14.67 t" 15.81 $17.63-41 $ $ 21.23 $ 19.59 $ 19.431$ S 13.22 $ 14.32 $ 11.87

Penal i 11.86 ,,_,,t,

$ 6.49 $ 9.46 $ 10.65

+ 12 43 1 $ 15.70 t $ 15 26

15.97 , $ 11A9 I $ 13 23 IF.3 11.67

Total Due $ 150 38 $ 81 85 $ 118.68

$ 132.91 $ 154 40 $ 19396 $ 187 41 $ 195 15

1 S 139.65 $ 159 84 $ 14023

,;„ , i'..

' ''''

1,

'

v

,

'

'

w

. ',.- '

.

'

-

.

' .:. :, -

. .

...

• t.e.,.. ..

•

.., --;-:

A

...., .

'

,

*.

•

. -1 ,

,

•

.

.

• i - .

January-07; Diesel

Jr7 Tax Due . Interest $ 13 98 . $ 234

t-

Penalty li $ 1 40 i „ ___ $ 2 61 1 $ 1 65 $ 2,89 : $ 1 67 : $ 2.27 1 $ 2 71 $ 2.71 - $2 10

2.93 $ 2.71

4 I

$ 2.40 I-4' $ 4 00 :

.,.

Total Due $ 1772- $ 32.89 $ 20.66 $ 32.39 $ 20.72, $ 28.00

$ 33.23 $ 33.05 $ 25 46 $ 35 44

$ 32.51 28.69

$ 47.59 -

February 07 March-07

ril-07 May-07

June-07 July-07

August-07 September-07

October-07 November-07 December-07

January-08 February-08

March-08 April-08 May-08

June-08

68 4 432 68.1 43.8 59.5

71.0 71.0 55.0 77.0 71.0 63.0

105.0 49.01 3 92.0

160.01 40,0 82.0

$ 26 oe 1 $ 16,46 $ 25.95 $ 16.69 $ 22.67 $ 27.05 $ 27.05 $ 20.96 $ 29.34 $ 27.05 $ 24,00 $ 40.01

$ 422 $ 2.55 $ 3.85 $ 2,38 $ 3.06 $ 3 47 $ 329

$ 2.41 $ 3.17 _

..$

$ 2.75 $ 2.29 $ 3.58'

May-07 June-07

August-07 September 07

October-07 November 07 December-07


March-08, April-08 . May-08 May

June-08 July-08

August-08 Sentember-08

October-08 November-08 December-08


_ ....„ March-09 April 09Ma -09

-4-

398.5 503.3

1 489 0 512.0 368 4 424 0 374 0 344 0 381 0 293.0 339.0 449.0

Ju tt-07

$ 124,33 $ 157.03 $ 152.57 $ 159.74 $ 114.94 $ 13229 $ 116 89 $ 107.33 $ 118,87 $ 91.42 $ 105.77 $ 140.09

$ 10.24,,j $ 10.73

$ 1064 ; $ 11.89

$ 7.67 1 $ 914

$ 8,25 : $ 1018 -4-

S 10.12 , $ 1401

$ 8.21 • $ 12.39 •

$ 7.42 . $ 12.26

$ 7.81 : $ 14 32

$ 7 29 3 15 01

$ 7.82 i S 18.26

$ 5.65 1 $ 15.32

$ 3.451 $ 11,09

$ 3.731 S 14.20

1 $ 3.10 $ 14,07

$ 2.25 $ 12.39

$ 1.80-I $ 12.95 ..

S 1.61 1 $ 16 38

$ 0.98 1 5 17 47

„....t $ 128.30 ' $ 141.40

$ 108.23 $ 124.59

18 67 $ 35.05 $ 60 96 $ 1524 $ 31.24

$ 1.56 $ 2.73 J $ 4A0 $ 1.01 $ 1.89

$ 1 87 , $ 151

I $ 6.10 $ 1.52 $ 3.12 $ 2 78 $ 2 44 $ 2.25 $ 1.71 $ 1.41 $ 1 52 $ 4.88 4 $ 3.35 $ 2,74 $ t i.64' $ 0.69

$ 75.31

$ 22.10 ' $ 41.29 i $ 71.46 1 $ 17.77 I $ 36 26

$ 164.22 $ 144.46 $ 142.30 $ .165.34 $ 17237 $ 208.66 $ 174.18 $ 125.46 $ 159.95 $ 15788 $ 138.56 $ 144.23 $ 181.79

397.0 $ 123.86 393,0

i$ 122.62

459.0t $ 14121 481.0 $ 150,07 585 21 $ 182 58 491.0! $ 153.19

355.51 $ 110.92 455.21 $142.02 451.01 $ 140.71 397.01$ 123,86 415.0 $ 129 48 i 525.01 $ 163.80 560.61 $ 174.72

July:08 August-08

September-08 _ NeveMber-08 December-08

January-09 February-09 ..

March-09 April--09 May-69

.June-09 TOTAL

AV,

73.0 $ 27 81 64.61 $ 24 38 59.0 $ 22 48 45.0 $ 17.15

- 37 0 $ 14.10 40.0 $ 15.24

128,0F.$ 48.77 88,0 $ 33.53 __ .„...„ . 72.0 $ 27 43 48.0 $ 17.53 5170 $ iiir4i 18 0 :,; 8 86

1976.7 $ 753.12

$ 1.51 $ 1.18 $ 096 $ 0.63 $ 0 43 $ 040 $ 1.70 $ 0.61 $ 0.38

1 $ 32 10 $ ' 28 00

$ 25 69

$ 19.49

$ 15.94

$ 17.16

$ 55 34

F. $ 37.49

, $ 30.56

$ 19.45

: t 21 47 ,

I $ 7 55 1 $ 887.44

$017 --$ b id $ 0.01 $ 59.01

--,

$ 193.17 $ - $ 4,429.47

June-09 TOTAL

0 0 1 $ - 2,072.4 $ 1766.58

$ - S $ 286,24 $ 376.68

I '

cs-p7 /13-e- c/4 /vi

`/0 ("/ ° 3QD

)4.ry*Q_

EX

HIB

IT B

1

tt7/0...S•

•• Isi [Aj

tARSARtieRiniesiblitilatERF

OUR SOCUki. NETWORKS

"CE8C4* Reteetle.ott I

SAG *: t'Th't ALERTS hit wiltsE - "FR

Try our E-Edtiton for FREE ,

$18 1 ov, ands tt Otto i t

pori:> Page Oreol tl. oiret,g1 tOr Men. 8.; Wy:K 6 Log4tiqns for .401 $9 99 45% $9 99

Wakes darts flatly dtaiatere4.-, nithOLOtat

other's Day 'Swim hataheits tlw Tow w atcd vccn call nt" a

Pearl iiraeOt", al a 14 clasp cal S Rao. Woo,

Montana Day Deals f,teydnng MOM ran tiflothe0 Day :.nisi, is ac testes osier'

us or: s4aboos "Lam" D•c *.,seer, on fa...Iv:S:1;x iii Stu. nnen

Fonts* eta on Slowest Are N. on P114, , E11 Fonon our ta.mada ILO enti Oa:Mae:It SODO.S.phoOla A aka,

• Fottow as on Rona ref .tavns",mee hi, breakee =AS,

,eta■O‘H 'VOW, rte mere

I FE 571314 I'VkciRIA.DE 570 ELL C.Pitt t KARS tet,A,S..*SIF aSw*Aus mspovisrry ORE CTORYNEWSE ETTERSSUMITSRE P2, N1

Enter a reared tem+

— LlatVejHaYy:.aie3122. , aelkaa“.eweig Nemerpaper "%Om rAt Saa•"'7,

tit Mat NEWS SP( RIIS ARtS€ Lttr9r.. - EtYtIVAlfTrOS- tAtr", AR Cl S SERVICE

MEDICS. OTT' UgDER EIRE • HOTEc STERLiNG ! ST Aft ! COURLTSTAXICE PROJECTS BUSINESS t OPti ENE ! AVVIROS OW'S DATA CENTER

citizensvoice.,

Wilkes-Barre resident uncovers city's phantom credit card statements

`AR , SES , BAKKE They ito etin

Al,ehl. the o,,o asag O! VS litatte ctl .14E, t , ttc. c zs, t?to Attet,ct•cc,

01,C cOMICCC tad were among dozen, record( that 00! tlt , Moored ,-

Pe on ' , Fi on, Bank of America to Octobet

'At ielgosi obtained the 40,a:eat:Oa Saitapastryl 1.0 O011 by a

Leeerle Co.yeley Fudge <n Nnvenn}el an parr of /hi Oat,..019e OptH-fted.Od..■ barge

.1th Ott ccry lie has be= al44 ro kcatem. a (WI atea;OOV: Of curry COO': card usage sons* loot yew

The New Grant Street tesid.i cutietted the siaternems :luting a heal, ng befor e ;.ocean COdohi L.10 Josetni F M'afihrtka Jr Aritt Vass d W ttle..01Z tOe

VAIOreerrit; prowl :shy I.One.:31S !-.d whim they tad AtUteS di'ete'r',

,,AAAKM,A kS.A . AtA,ss,' ALSAAr l stlh Aral 2wmes .C,.tt, tc,:c1,,ctcr•

I Mia'phy•s credo tad at'O.O.00da dal OM eY , O.

Oa can't chSnhohhAsly Ice to the pnbln: and get awav uffr " Wtelgozz lard "les no, Iamb au yea away le -t ghtho, to get worse

City ofFioiatk, off-g•ctan try Miiegoteri sPetd moil yeeeetaatte for /1 , 9.^HY of how a ea* ft,YSeet. i.:04W eatent 'none dcw,d,entt

than they did rhty stnQd behold asa.WOOO, OUl'oned

three swore ull;duvos dared Oct 20

affidav retied a,txzrt a tette: Bank of AMArrca Spat -. 0 ore city that start-

APS4ISS of aelenze-et coca tvCa.an there were no taa'ae.W.C.1 duets ,hart

anntahs

dy ,in it1 itet an e‘rsiaosth .ws front them iat,cow they .4,0 , 0 prtcitg.ta a ism" to us aleitO4 ttheqh.ACai is' that nines trio

:italeOltate and yea iande: subpoena, they 114AtihiA thtn, to 5.0.01,^Ortf. else," saki (Sirs, McLaughlin, cut cry's spokewve ,

9s of Monday ai •zernoon, ,ds. 0040 wact , •ta for rooee Hoc-cc the (ant.. MzI...anghlan tatd A Rank of Ahless<ss

!-S1S'LMAO ninknnetati clot hAf Avonra. ,k-es •ttt,,, a ;,,,e.s.we ,ormsept

:Otrod, ie a otoa ate ,YOTOrIal ,tatoWOOlt atletnog MecontiNM pet,laned in the sworn AHILOOyO$. ee gaud He ,capper( ey the 1.,2.eole co,oty An Ito way out of the coatthouse, but a. aCattarY Cliftaltei how

to COMAS& it eM1411:etaa.1 ai!0r,:.1 Judge

Vaiait M.:LWOW said St,COertncio.. is "bevoral repraixn," ,ea Hey, ,adda.,6 than sire minicci raced *OH

of Ames tnrrytmatual,

cens,niv don't betcyt Marro McCcanack t rod:n those affidavits' Dency Sant

tetraisias`ti heating proved anoitin twig in ONemeti Oat Itighi-to , Isents tit spine Mat tetori -when *Wpm FIed air onanitteOrdS. :e4tteak fen the cd -Y'% enedq <4;h1 ziazemems ear

W'rtih,,, fo c ,Ohhnh...ha rCtuied Ene c-t1, < alSentddn d md, nbed the S ,4$ .;th.re cehld sunet,ents and didn't beheve the OYO:aelkaef 060:Oed red Ihe JA.Ad SeirAYS1 etairriptek .rnty drati , I edd Staiellenti urea mew, were made on outstasItng hA}ArAX.A. th,o4 h uric sobsetpaetit st atement cordicsning the DAvtrithiS WAS ;Saved

WteteelSelVeitatteal SO the Rate Office ot Open itieccarth, in September arde✓vd rite On, to ntst.theve ee,Ote HetleOhtOV.

w>n, • aE4,:n:otai s4Wernenta the <31'y otd.as,,,,d Etat, Batik of Amer. cs, W , ervraz SINJ a petiTtort roLutant Efnucity Court to compct en) to relyseve more &Jet/menu As part of the taetairm,W ieigosz nimeiveO subpoena power

Wien nn w:!:hfbni a attat• ;CC' y ,.VitttgUNt , Attattli:; ,:tt Gays CAAStAtAl t K phahtoth :dmetttans flog, HA (-awl seryi,a, ninTatitnny Mew* err America. 'rte said Sri, of the-n intilinien charges Etc a IbtAl o^ S5,32".4.25

fiat W.e. , ;;;Yie .wi= red 0,e. diya•aolteh. OYadt Ora tekY'eaa* OtletiOa Ott tip , Lne■n, ,a POLO•ai Sococcns v mack when h., ,. sahzed curacy -ahlaoaed the ttleen .i.e,d5

,d1hillew I he 0,Ni:on, but couldn't ter, or a wry crack as he held the credit card Sakonnet in Ihr COVT400.

het ' he kwil fanctioitalt

ttc,t4CD,Ctt •ni`;;;;;

http://citizensvoice.com/newslwilkes-barre-residen -uncovers-city-s-p... 41.'8/2014

va cD

0

pennsylvania OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS

FINAL DETERMINATION

IN THE MATTER OF

FRANK SORICK, Complainant

v .

CITY OF WILKES BARRE,

Docket No.: AP 2014-0417

Respondent

INTRODUCTION

Frank Sorick (the "Requester") submitted a request (the "Request") to the City of

Wilkes Bane ("City") seeking information relating to the City's payment to the

Pennsylvania Department of Revenue in 2009 pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law, 65

P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., ("RTKL"). The City denied the request because it provided the

documents that it possessed to the Requester in its response to an earlier RTKL request

and it had no other documents pertaining to the Request. The Requester appealed to the

Office of Open Records ("00R"). For the reasons set forth in this Final Determination,

the appeal is denied and the City is not required to take any further action.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 5, 2014 the Request was filed, seeking "all documents including

bills/invoices/letters from the [Pennsylvania Department] of revenue to the City of

1

Wilkes-Bane which generated the Wilkes-Barre City check number 001043914 to be

issued to Pa. Department of Revenue on 8/6/2009 in the amount of $5,316.92 by the City

of Wilkes-Barre." On March 12, 2014 the City denied the Request. It stated that it

provided all the existing documents in its response to the Requester's February 21, 2014

request and that there were no other responsive documents.

On March 18, 2014, the Requester appealed to the 00R, challenging the denial

and stating grounds for disclosure. The OOR invited both parties to supplement the

record and directed the City to notify any third parties of their ability to participate in the

appeal pursuant to 65 P.S. § 67.1101(c).

On March 20, 2014, the City submitted an affidavit from its City Administrator,

who attests that the City provided all the existing documents concerning the Request and

that she contacted the Department of Revenue who informed her that there were no other

responsive documents. Requester also submitted an affidavit on March 20 in which he

attested that he contacted the Department of Revenue, which allegedly confirmed that the

requested letter exists but that only the taxpayer, apparently the City, would have to

request this document from that departinent.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

"The objective of the Right to Know Law ... is to empower citizens by affording

them access to information concerning the activities of their government." SWB Yankees

L.L.C. v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029, 1041 (Pa. 2012). Further, this important open-

government law is "designed to promote access to official government information in

order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public

officials accountable for their actions." Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d

813, 824 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), aff'd 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013).

The OOR is authorized to hear appeals for all Commonwealth and local agencies.

See 65 P.S. § 67.503(a). An appeals officer is required "to review all information filed

relating to the request." 65 P.S. § 67.1102(a)(2). An appeals officer may conduct a

hearing to resolve an appeal. The decision to hold a hearing or not hold a hearing is

discretionary and non-appealable. Id. The law also states that an appeals officer may

admit into evidence testimony, evidence and documents that the appeals officer believes

to be reasonably probative and relevant to an issue in dispute. Id. Here, neither party

requested a hearing and the OOR has the necessary, requisite information and evidence

before it to properly adjudicate the matter.

The City is a local agency subject to the RTKL that is required to disclose public

records. 65 P.S. § 67.302. Records in possession of a local agency are presumed public

unless exempt under the RTKL or other law or protected by a privilege, judicial order or

decree. See 65 P.S. § 67.305. An agency bears the burden of proving the applicability

of any cited exemptions. See 65 P.S. § 67.708(b).

Section 708 of the RTKL clearly places the burden of proof on the public body to

demonstrate that a record is exempt. In pertinent part, Section 708(a) states: "(1) The

burden of proving that a record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency is exempt

from public access shall be on the Commonwealth agency or local agency receiving a

request by a preponderance of the evidence." 65 P.S. § 67.708(a). Preponderance of the

evidence has been defined as "such proof as leads the fact-finder ... to find that the

existence of a contested fact is more probable than its nonexistence." Pa. State Troopers

Ass'n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435, 439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (quoting Dep't of Transp. v.

Agric. Lands Condemnation Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821, 827 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010)).

"The burden of proving a record does not exist ... is placed on the agency responding to

the right-to-know request." Hodges v. Pennsylvania Department of Health, 29 A.3d

1190, 1192 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011).

In his affidavit, Requester attested that the Department of Revenue stated that it

possessed a letter relating to his request and that the City would have to request this

letter. The letters were not specifically identified. However, the City Administrator also

attested in her affidavit that she asked the Department of Revenue whether it possessed

any documents relating to the Request and that it only identified a spreadsheet that the

City already provided to the Requester, along with other documents to respond to his

February 21 request.

Under the RTKL, an affidavit may serve as sufficient evidentiary support for an

assertion. See Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515, 520-21 (Pa. Commw Ct.

2011); Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907, 909 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010).

Based on the material provided, the City has met its burden of proof that it has provided

all responsive records to the Requester and that no other documents exist.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Requester's appeal is denied and the City is not

required to take any further action. This Final Determination is binding on all parties.

Within thirty (30) days of the mailing date of this Final Determination, any party may

appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). All

parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The OOR also shall be served notice

4

and have an opportunity to respond according to court rules as per Section 1303 of the

RTKL. This Final Determination shall be placed on the OOR website at:

http://openrecords.state.pa.us .

FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: April 15, 2014

APPEALS OFFICER JAMES A. HOLZMAN, ESQ.

Sent to: Frank Sorick; Marie McCormick, City Administrator

5

51) no

oo 0

(111

111H

X1

IN THE MATTER OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS


Docket No.: AP 2014-0417 v .

CITY OF WILKES-BARRE, Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : S S.

COUNTY OF LUZERNE

I, Marie McCormick, City Administrator of the City of Wilkes-Barre, being duly sworn, hereby attest to the following:

1. That I directed city employees to perform a thorough review for any and all records which would be responsive to the March 05, 2014 Right-to-Know request submitted by Frank Sorick (copy attached).

2. That it was determined that all documents responsive to the March 5, 2014 request (or the subject matter thereof) in possession of the City were previously provided to Mr. Sorick in response to his February 21, 2014 Right-to-Know request.

3. That, in an effort to be as responsive as possible, I personally contacted the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue to inquire if they had any documents which would be responsive to Mr. Sorick's request. The department infouned me they had nothing responsive other than the previously provided spreadsheet (which the City provided to Mr. Sorick in response to his February 21, 2014 Right-to-Know request).

4. That the City of Wilkes-Barre has no other documents responsive to Mr. Sorick's request.

5. I verify that the statements contained in this Affidavit are true and correct based on my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that statements contained herein are subject to the penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S. Sect. 4904 related to unsworn falsification to authorities.

Date: March 20, 2014

Sworn to and subscribed before

me this 20th day of March, 2014.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

NOTARIAL SEAL MARGARET M. SPAC'K6i\iA,S, Notary Public WILKES-BARRF. CITY, LLIZERNE COUNTY

I My Commission Expires Jam 13, 2016

1272 2/ MARIE McCORMICK, City Administrator

IN THE MATTER OF

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF OPEN RECORDS


Docket No: AP 2014-041 . 7

CITY OF WILKES BARRE, Respondent

AFFIDAVIT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : SS.

COUNTY OF LUZERNE

I, Frank R Sorick, President of The Wilkes Barre City Taxpayers Association, being duly sworn, hereby attest to the following:

1. That on January 11, 2014 I submitted a Right to Know to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. seeking: "any letters and/or invoices from the Pa Dept. of Revenue to the City of Wilkes Barre relating to a payment to the Pa. Department of Revenue on 8/6/2009 in the amount of $5,316.92 by the City of Wilkes-Barre."

2. That on January 13, 2014 at 9:15 AM, I personally had a telephone conversation with Elizabeth Prestel, Press Secretary for Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, 717-346-4626, where Ms. Prestel confirmed the existence of the requested letter(s), but stated that only the taxpayer(s) (in this case City of Wilkes Barre) may request a copy, Ms. Prestel at that time advised that 1 seek the requested letter(s) from Wilkes Barre City directly.

On February 21, 2014 1 submitted a Right to Know request to the City of Wilkes Barre seeking the above mentioned documents, only to be give a copy of the check which I already had, and a spreadsheet printout.

4. On March 5, 2014 I again sought the same document, via a reworded Right to Know, from the City of Wilkes Barre only to be denied once again on March 12, 2014.

5. I contend that either the City of Wilkes Barre is in possession of the requested letter(s), or is in constructive possession of said letter(s) and/or has the ability/duty to provide the requested information.

1=1■1■11■••■•••11.111.

• A

6. I verify that the statements contained in this Affidavit are true and correct based on my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that statements contained herein are subject to the penalties contained in 18 Pa. C.S. Sect. 4904 related to unsworn falsifications to autho:ities.

Date:

-7 tit

Frank R Sorick President. Wilkes Barre Cry Taxpayers Association

Sworn to and subscribed before

me this ) day or March, 2014.

NOTARY PUBLIC

COMMONWErd. t1 OF PENINS‘f VAN

NOTARIAL SEAL Pail Mulcahy, Notary Public

City of Wilkes Bart, Luzerne County Ma 07, 2016


) FRANK SORICK, ) WILKES BARRE CITY TAXPAYERS ) ASSOCIATION, )

) Docket NO. Petitioner, )

v. ) )

CITY OF WILKES BARRE, ) )

Respondent. ) )

Receipt for Service

aostcAa-s- acknowledge receipt of service on

UP 2-014

Signature

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LUZERNE...

Documents

Transcript of COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LUZERNE...