The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRTK-1 In Re: Reverend Wes Carroll : RTK Tracking #: 002-05 Requester : X-Ref: RTK-1 : Date Decided: 2/23/05 : Date Mailed: 2/23/05 Before Agency Head/Designee : John J. Contino, Esq. Executive Director This is a final determination by the agency head of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission, or by the agency head’s designee, as to certain request(s) for State Ethics Commission records submitted by the above-named Requester (hereinafter “Requester”) under the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Act (65 P.S. § 66.1 et seq., as amended). The Requester initiated these proceedings by filing with the State Ethics Commission request(s) for State Ethics Commission records. A response was issued to Requester denying the request(s). The Requester filed a “Request Petition for Reconsideration.” This is a final determination, which constitutes the final Order of the Commission in this matter. 65 P.S. § 66.3-5. This final determination is publicly available upon issuance. When a final determination affirms a denial of access, the Requester has 30 days from the mailing date of the final determination to appeal by filing a Petition for Review or other document as might be required by rule of Court with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. See, 65 P.S.§ 66.4. In re: Reverend Wes Carroll RTK Tracking # 002-05 Page 2 of 6 I. FINDINGS: 1. Requester maintains a mailing address at: #75254, Allegheny County Jail, 950 nd 2 Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-3100. 2. On January 10, 2005, the State Ethics Commission received from Requester two (2) Right-to-Know request forms (collectively referred to herein as “the Right-to- Know Request”), requesting documents as follows: a. “Statement of Financial Interest of any and all persons or etities [sic] within you possession who have an office within Pittsburgh Pa and or are responsible and accountable for governmental power exercised within Pgh., Pa Allegheny County and or have primary jurisdiction within Pgh. Pa Allegheny County and connected with or to the criminal justice system and or health care, within the last 10 years. (and any related materials).” b. “Statement of financial Interest and of advisory or disciplinary action of the SEC, within your possession of all persons who’s major operations has been within Allegheny County Pittsburgh Pa and or who reside in that area and or has been or is in any way connected to the Criminal Justice System, within the last 10 years. (And any related materials).” 3. On January 11, 2005, the State Ethics Commission through its Executive Director issued a response denying the Right-to-Know Request based upon the following stated reasons and legal authority: You did not identify or describe the records with sufficient specificity to enable us to determine which records you are requesting. Consequently, your request is denied pursuant to 65 P.S. §66.2(c). Explanation and Additional Citations: Your request is too broad for the State Ethics Commission to determine precisely which documents you are seeking. If you would like to submit another request, please identify by name (and to the extent possible, address and title) the specific individuals to whom the requested documents pertain. Statements of Financial Interest filed directly with the State Ethics Commission are available at the Commission’s web site at www.ethics.state.pa.us, within the Commission’s elibrary. Instructions for researching such filings are provided on the web site. Statements of Financial Interests required by law to be filed at locations other than the State Ethics Commission would be accessed through such other filing locations rather than through the State Ethics Commission. 4. The January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request met all requirements of 65 P.S. § 66.3-3. 5. On February 7, 2005, the State Ethics Commission received from Requester a document dated February 1, 2005, which document was styled a “Request In re: Reverend Wes Carroll RTK Tracking # 002-05 Page 3 of 6 Petition for Reconsideration” and asserted: (a) that Requester did not receive the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request until February 1, 2005; (b) that the denial of the Right-to-Know Request was a material error of law and/or a material error of facts and/or a result of lack of due diligence; (c) that Requester and many other U.S. and Pennsylvania citizens will continue to be injured and harmed by acts complained of to the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission; and (d) that in the interest of justice and to prevent additional continuous injuries, the Request Petition for Reconsideration should be granted and appropriate orders and actions immediately initiated. 6. To the extent the Request Petition for Reconsideration was intended to constitute exceptions, it was untimely. a. Any exceptions to the denial of the Right-to-Know Request were due within 15 business days of the January 11, 2005, mailing date, that is, on or before February 2, 2005. 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). b. There is only Requester’s unsupported assertion that he did not receive the denial of the Right-to-Know Request until February 1, 2005. c. The Request Petition for Reconsideration was in an envelope bearing a postage meter mark dated February 4, 2005. 7. The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions. a. The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not state any grounds upon which the Requester asserts that the requested records are public records, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). b. The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not address any of the grounds stated in the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). 8. The Right-to-Know Request was properly denied. II. DISCUSSION: The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission is an independent Commonwealth agency with statutory authority to administer, interpret and enforce the Public Official and Employee Ethics Act ("Ethics Act"), 65 Pa.C.S. § 1101, et seq. On January 10, 2005, the State Ethics Commission received from Requester two (2) Right-to-Know request forms (collectively referred to herein as “the Right-to-Know Request”), requesting documents as set forth in Finding 2. On January 11, 2005, the State Ethics Commission through its Executive Director issued a response denying the Right-to-Know Request based upon the stated reasons and legal authority set forth in Finding 3. The January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request met all requirements of 65 P.S. § 66.3-3. On February 7, 2005, the State Ethics Commission received from Requester a document dated February 1, 2005, which document was styled a “Request Petition for Reconsideration” and asserted: (a) that Requester did not receive the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request until February 1, 2005; (b) that the denial of the Right-to-Know Request was a material error of law and/or a material error of facts and/or a result of lack of due diligence; (c) that Requester and many other U.S. and Pennsylvania citizens will continue to be injured and harmed by acts complained of to In re: Reverend Wes Carroll RTK Tracking # 002-05 Page 4 of 6 the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission; and (d) that in the interest of justice and to prevent additional continuous injuries, the Request Petition for Reconsideration should be granted and appropriate orders and actions immediately initiated. The Request Petition for Reconsideration was in an envelope bearing a postage meter mark dated February 4, 2005. The Request Petition for Reconsideration did not state any grounds asserting that the requested records are public records, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). The Request Petition for Reconsideration did not address any of the grounds stated in the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3- 5(a). Based upon the above, it is determined that: 1. The Requester failed to timely file exceptions to the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request. 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). Any exceptions to the denial of the Right-to-Know Request were due within 15 business days of the January 11, 2005, mailing date, that is, on or before February 2, 2005. 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). To the extent the Request Petition for Reconsideration was intended to constitute exceptions, it was untimely. The Request Petition for Reconsideration was in an envelope bearing a postage meter mark dated February 4, 2005, and it was not received by the Commission until February 7, 2005. There is only Requester’s unsupported assertion that he did not receive the denial of the Right-to- Know Request until February 1, 2005. 2. The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions. 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions. The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not state any grounds asserting that the requested records are public records, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). The Request Petition for Reconsideration does not address any of the grounds stated in the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). The Requester’s failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions constitutes grounds for dismissal of the Request Petition for Reconsideration. Martella v. Department of Transportation, 841 A.2d 633 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). 3. The Right-to-Know Request was correctly denied for the following reasons: (a) The Right-to-Know Request did not identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the Commission to ascertain which records were being requested, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.2(c). It would take an extensive investigation to identify all of the persons who would satisfy the most basic of the criteria set forth in Requester’s Right-to-Know Request, while other criteria would be impossible to determine due to vagueness (e.g., the location of a person’s “major operations” or the existence of a “connection” with the criminal justice system or health care). (b) The State Ethics Commission does not compile, maintain, format or organize its records based upon the criteria the Requester has asserted, and the Commission is not required to do so. 65 P.S. § 66.2(e). The State Ethics Commission’s public documents are compiled, maintained, formatted, and organized based upon names; tracking/docketing or issuance numbers; In re: Reverend Wes Carroll RTK Tracking # 002-05 Page 5 of 6 and dates. The Commission is not required to compile, maintain, format or organize its records based upon the criteria Requester has asserted. 65 P.S. § 66.2(e). However, the Commission has made its public documents available in searchable form on the Commission’s web site at www.ethics.state.pa.us. Therefore, the Requester may use the web site to search for documents based upon content. (c) Requester’s broad request for materials related to “disciplinary action” by the State Ethics Commission would include materials that are confidential by law and not subject to access. 65 Pa.C.S. § 1108(h); 65 P.S. § 66.2(a). (d) To the extent the Right-to-Know Request seeks records pertaining to judicial officers and judicial employees, the State Ethics Commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Ethics Act as to such persons. Billotte, Opinion 00-005; L.J.S. v. State Ethics Commission, 744 A.2d 798 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). For all of the above reasons, the State Ethics Commission properly denied the Requester’s Right-to-Know Request. III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: 1. The Requester, Reverend Wes Carroll (“Carroll”), who submitted two (2) Right- to-Know request forms received by the State Ethics Commission on January 10, 2005 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Right-to-Know Request”), failed to timely file exceptions to the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request. 2. Carroll’s “Request Petition for Reconsideration” does not satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions set forth at 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a). 3. The Right-to-Know Request was correctly denied for the following reasons: (a) The Right-to-Know Request did not identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the State Ethics Commission to ascertain which records were being requested, as required by 65 P.S. § 66.2(c); (b) The State Ethics Commission does not compile, maintain, format or organize its records based upon the criteria Carroll has asserted, and the Commission is not required to do so; (c) Carroll’s broad request for materials related to “disciplinary action” by the State Ethics Commission would include materials that are confidential by law and not subject to access; and (d) To the extent the Right-to-Know Request seeks records pertaining to judicial officers and judicial employees, the State Ethics Commission lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Ethics Act as to such persons. In Re: Reverend Wes Carroll : RTK Tracking #: 002-05 Requester : Date Decided: 2/23/05 : Date Mailed: 2/23/05 ORDER NO. RTK-1 1. The Requester, Reverend Wes Carroll (“Carroll”), who submitted two (2) Right-to-Know request forms received by the State Ethics Commission on January 10, 2005 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Right-to-Know Request”), failed to timely file exceptions to the January 11, 2005, denial of the Right-to-Know Request. 2. The Right-to-Know Request was correctly denied. 3. Carroll’s “Request Petition for Reconsideration” does not satisfy the statutory requirements for exceptions set forth at 65 P.S. § 66.3-5(a) and is dismissed. BY THE AGENCY HEAD/DESIGNEE, John J. Contino, Esq., Executive Director