, Copies Distributed Sots saitate SAS Date. CITY OF HARRISBURG, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner, DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2015 CV 04163 MP JOSHUA PRINCE, ESQ, : STATUTORY APPEAL (RTKL) Respondent, MEMORANDUM and ORDER TKL Appeal) © Before the Court is the Petition for Review of the City of Harrisburg from the Final Determination of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (“OR”), Joshua Prince, Esq., submitted a request to the City of Harrisburg pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (*RTKL"), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., seeking records regarding the “Protect Harrisburg Legal Defense Fund.” The City partially denied the request, providing redacted donor records. ‘The City redacted the names and addresses of the donors. Prince appealed to the OOR, which in its Final Determination, granted in part and denied in part the appeal. ‘The OOR concluded that the City hhad not met its burden of demonstrating that responsive donor information may be redacted under Section 708(b)(13) of the RTKL, and that the City had demonstrated that no other records exist. On May 27, 2015, the City filed the Petition for Review of the OOR’s final order, now before the Court. On June 15, 2015, Prince filed a Cross-Peti for Review of the OOR’s final order, along with a Motion to Disqualify Cross-Respondent’s Counsel. ‘This Court conducted hearings to address these matter on May 27, 2015, and July 29, 2015. The objective of the RTKL ‘is to empower citizens by affording them access to information concerning the activities of their government.” SWB Yankees LLC y. Wintermantel, 145 A.3d 1029, 1042 (Pa, 2012). Pursuant to section 305 of the RTKL, a record in the possession of a local ageney, like the City in this case, shall be presumed to be @ public record, unless: the record is exempt under section 708 of the RTKL. As this is a decision of a local agency, in Dauphin County, this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal. 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a). The City is appealing the conclusion made by the OOR that it did not meet its burden of demonstrating that responsive donor information may be redacted under Section 708(b)(13) of the RTKL. Section 708(b)(13) states that redaction should apply to: Records that would disclose the identity of an individual who lawfully makes a donation to an agency unless the donation is intended for or restricted to providing remuneration or personal tangible benefit to a named public official or employee of the agency, including lists of potential donors compiled by an agency to pursue donations, donor profile information or personal identifying information relating to a donor. The OOR’s determination was based on the lack of any evidence, or more specifically the lack of an affidavit supporting the City’s position that the redacted records were exempt. To cure this possible defect of the record below, the City supplements the record before this Court with the Affidavit of Neil A. Grover, Esq, filed on July 14, 2015. In the affidavit Attomey Grover indicates that the fund was set up by the City to help the City defray legal expenses associated with defending challenges to local firearm ordinanees. (Affidavit of Neil A. Grover, Esq., at p2 4 6). Attomey Grover also indicates that the donations at issue cannot and do not provide remuneration or personal tangible benefit to any public official or employee of the City. (ld. at 48). Because the affidavit provided by the City is competent evidence, this Court concludes that the City has met its burden of proving that the donor information is exempt from disclosurethat the City established that other than the redacted records that were provided to him, no other responsive records exist in the City’s possession, Neil A. Grover, Esq. attested to the following: 3. In my capacity as the City Solicitor, 1 am familiar with the records of the Agency and have knowledge of the matters at issue in this proceeding. 4, Upon receipt of the request, I have direct knowledge that the [the City’s Open Records Officer} Mr. Brownsweiger, in consultation with me, caused a thorough examination of files in possession, custody and control of the Agency for records responsive to the request underlying this appeal 5, Additionally, inguires with the relevant Agency personnel and, if applicable, relevant third party contractors, were made as to whether requested records exist in their possession. 6. After conducting a good faith search of the Agency’s files and inquiring with relevant Agency personnel, I understand that all public records within the Agency's possession, custody or control that are responsive to the request, along, with the supplemental information requested, were obtained and provided to the requester. (Attestation that Ageney Provided All Responsive Records, R. #8). “Public officials are presumed to have acted lawfully and in good faith until facts showing the contrary are averred, or in a proper case are averred and proved.” Robinson v. City of Phila., 161 A.2d 1, 5 (Pa. 1960), We find no evidence in the record that any City official acted unlawfully or in bad faith, We except Attorney Grover’s attestation as true, and conclude that the City has established that no other responsive record exists in its possession, For the foregoing reasons, we affirm OOR's final determination that the City has established that no other responsive record exists, and we reverse OOR’s determination as to the disclosure of donor identification information.CITY OF HARRISBURG, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Petitioner, : DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA, ve + NO. 2015 CV 04163 MP. JOSHUA PRINCE, ESQ., STATUTORY APPEAL (RTKL) Respondent, ? ORDER AND NOW, this 2“! day of September, 2015, the Office of Open Records! final determination is AFFIRMED IN PART, and REVERSED IN PART in accordance with the foregoing opinion. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Prince’s Motion to Disqualify Cross-Respondent’s Counsel and the City’s request for attomey’s fees is Denied BY THE COURT: JUDGE ANDREW H, DOWLING DISTRIBUTION Adam Kraut, Esq., 646 Lenape Road, Bechtelsville, PA 19505 Joshua Autry, Esq,, 225 Market Street, Suite 304, Harrisburg, PA 17108 Court Administration