Hessley v. Campbell

¶1Dissenting.

¶2I respectfully dissent. It is undisputed that appellants have been provided with an alphabetical street list free of charge. I believe this satisfies the Commissioners’ duties under both the Righb-to-Know Act and the Voter Registration Act.

¶3The first statute provides, as the majority notes, that citizens be given the right to inspect public records and that rules regarding their right to copy such records must be reasonable. It does not in any way suggest that requestors may demand that data be produced in a particular format or medium they find most desirable. The Voter Registration Act specifically provides that streets lists may be prepared and distributed “[ajlphabetically by last name of registrant”1 and that “the commission shall provide paper copies of the public information lists and may provide copies in some other form...”2 Since the Commissioners have distributed the material in a way specifically sanctioned by the Voter Registration Act, I fail to see how this could be deemed anything other than reasonable under the Right-to-Know Act. Further, I believe that providing the information in some reasonable manner is all that the [RTK] Act requires.

¶4The majority’s analysis centers upon the fact that the Commissioners could provide the data on computer disks at minimal cost, but instead choose to charge a hefty fee to those who wish to obtain the benefits of the Commissioners’ labor in computerizing the information. It concludes that this practice is unreasonable.3 However, I believe this is relevant only if requestors are entitled to demand information in computerized form. Since they are not, I would affirm the order of the court of common pleas.