Penncrest School District v. Bethany Rodgers

Summary

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed an order requiring Penncrest School District to conduct a good-faith search for emails held in the personal accounts of school board members and the superintendent. The court held that emails sent or received through personal accounts may constitute records under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law when they document an agency transaction or activity and are created in an official capacity. The court rejected the District’s argument that individual board members’ lack of authority to bind the District prevented their communications from being agency records.

Holdings

1. The location of an email on a personal computer or personal email account is not determinative. An email may be a public record if it documents a transaction or activity of the agency, is created, received, or retained in connection with agency business, and is sent or received by a public official acting in an official capacity and furthering the agency's interests.
2. The District was required to take reasonable steps to secure potentially responsive records by asking its Board members and Superintendent whether they possessed responsive emails, including emails in personal accounts, and then review those records for public-record status and applicable exemptions.
3. No. The RTKL's definition of a record is not limited to binding business transactions. Individual Board members acting alone in their official capacities may engage in agency activities in furtherance of the District's interests, including policy development, training, or other official work.

Questions Presented

1. Whether emails sent or received by individual school Board members through private email accounts may constitute public records under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law.
2. Whether the District was required to inquire of Board members and the Superintendent and conduct a good-faith search of their personal email accounts for potentially responsive records.
3. Whether the District's argument that individual Board members cannot bind the District or act alone on its behalf excluded their communications from the definition of a public record.

Disposition

affirmed