Counties and Commonwealth face challenges with current right-to-know law

On Monday, March 23, 2026 the Pennsylvania House Intergovernmental Affairs and Operations Committee chaired by Rep. David Delloso held a hearing regarding the administration and use of the Right-To-Know (RTK) Law. Testimony was provided by governmental stakeholders from the PA Office of Open Records, the County Commissioners Association, and the PA State Association of Boroughs. Counsel from the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association and a transparency and public access attorney from Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel, LLP represented the public.

Since the RTK Law was enacted in 2008, the committee is determining how best to modernize it and plans to use the testimony provided to craft changes in the law. We’ll review a few of the issues raised during the testimony.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is presenting problems both at the local agency level and at the Office of Open Records (OOR), which handles appeals of denied RTK requests. AI use has led to an increased number of requests that are broad in scope and time and an increased number of appeals filed — up 64 percent in the past year

Some requests include links or attachments that pose cybersecurity threats and appeal document lengths are now multiple pages as opposed to multiple lines. As a result, state personnel spend dozens of hours on these complex requests with no mechanism to recoup the expense. Even more troubling is that some of the legal advice and case law provided by AI and used in these requests is inaccurate.

The OOR is concerned about the increasing use of AI overwhelming the RTK filing process and is looking for a change in the law that would prohibit the use of unverified AI in filings. PA Senate Bill 431 permits the denial of a RTK request if the open-records officer has reasonable belief that the request was generated by a computer program or AI. Requests can also be denied if there is reasonable belief that a hyperlink or download could be a risk to cybersecurity. All governmental stakeholders agree that a “cost-recovery framework” could be added to this or other legislation to compensate agencies for increased personnel and processing time for complex requests.

Jurisdictions also claim a problem in vexatious requestors — citizens who they believe make multiple requests every day in an effort to overwhelm staff and disrupt operations. They believe requests are meant to harass agencies and, at times, skirt the formal discovery process during litigation. The law requires agencies to comply with the request despite the intent of the requestor. However, according to the PA NewsMedia Association, available data does not indicate that this is a widespread issue and that most RTK requests are very routine. There is a clear difference of opinion between the public and the government agencies on this issue.

Counties and boroughs would like the ability to distinguish between legitimate and abusive requests and the authority to deny vexatious ones. Alternatively, they would like to see PA House Bill 974, which requires specificity in describing the records sought in the request, to be amended to include a vexatious request process to be administered by the OOR.

But what makes someone a “vexatious requestor” as opposed to a persistent watchdog? 

The PA NewsMedia Association urged caution before allowing the governmental agency being scrutinized to make that determination. The risk of agencies misusing the label is real: Allowing agencies to name someone a vexatious requestor provides the governmental agencies a mechanism to avoid scrutiny from uncomfortable or inconvenient facts. Additionally, if agencies are provided a system to seek relief from vexatious requestors through the OOR, then that office’s resources could be further strained and pulled away from their core function of adjudicating appeals. Since the First Amendment protects the act of requesting public records, any infringement on that ability raises constitutional concerns that could result in federal litigation.

Government agencies and requestors view the issue of timeliness from opposite perspectives. Agencies see large and complex requests that often require coordination between multiple departments and systems in addition to legal review for redaction of private information. Due to the strict statutory timelines, some jurisdictions have difficulty balancing the need to meet the deadlines with ensuring resources are available for core functions of the county or borough. In addition, completing the increasing number of election-related requests at the same time as counties run elections has become onerous.

But the public sees routine delays in receiving responsive records. The RTK law requires agencies to respond to public record requests as promptly as possible within five business days, but allows for a 30-day extension in special circumstances. However, agencies are routinely invoking the 30-day extension, and the requestor has no recourse or way to challenge the extension.

Solutions

There is no proposed legislation that addresses the issues raised by the governmental stakeholders. However, they suggested that legislators consider allowing smaller jurisdictions more than five (5) days for an initial response to RTK requests. Additionally, one suggested creating blackout periods where requests could not be made during election cycles.

The media and public advocates would like legislators to encourage agencies to proactively disclose public information. The federal government discloses records in the FOIA Reading Room. A similar concept within Pennsylvania would reinforce prompt production of documents without the need for the formal RTK process. It would conserve public resources, reduce production delays, and align with the intent of the RTK law.

The PA NewsMedia Association discussed the issue of enforcement of the RTK law to the committee. This is only a problem borne by the public.

There are little to no consequences to agencies when they improperly deny requests for public records. The appellate process requires the average citizen to obtain counsel to argue the case in various courts. The agencies have unlimited taxpayer-funded resources to file motion after motion and appeal after appeal. That just drives up the legal costs for the requestor. 

Even if the requestor eventually wins in court and is allowed to receive the public documents, very rarely do courts impose penalties on the governmental agencies. The result is the release of public records to the requestor along with a hefty legal bill from his/her attorney. Many improperly denied requests go unchallenged because of the high legal costs involved. This is a systemic problem that goes against the spirit of the RTK law.

Public stakeholders suggested that legislators update the RTK to include a meaningful method to shift burdensome legal fees to the government agencies if the requestor prevails in court. This will encourage agencies to comply with the law and limit the casual denial of requests.

Although government agencies talk about wanting transparency and accountability, the testimony provided to The Pennsylvania House Intergovernmental Affairs and Operations Committee shows a somewhat adversarial relationship between the agencies and the public.

We believe common-sense changes could be made to the RTK law to protect against AI abuse by the public and to assist governmental agencies. At the same time, those agencies should be disincentivized to deny requests without good legal grounds. We must all watch what the legislature does with the idea of the “vexatious requestor.” If we lose the ability to scrutinize our government, the Constitutional Republic we were provided becomes an autocratic state overnight.

Felice Fein is the Executive Director of Keystone Fair Business Partners, a 501c6 membership organization supporting the shared interests of its members as it educates southeastern Pennsylvania with facts about issues and policies that impact local businesses and families.