The Ever-Constant Evolution Of PA’s Right-To-Know Law

By Whitney Downard | Pennsylvania Capital-Star

In the commonwealth, anyone has the right to request public records from government agencies, with the exception of items such as investigative records and personal records, as codified under the state’s Right-to-Know law.

No one entity tracks the thousands of requests made through townships, boroughs, counties and state agencies, but all appeals are funneled through the Office of Open Records — which reported a record-breaking year in 2025. 

The 3,970 appeals filed last year are a 23% increase from the previous record in 2024. Nearly two-thirds came from citizens, while companies and private organizations, the next largest segment, accounted for 17%.

But the law still needs tweaking, as state Sen. Cris Dush (R-Jefferson) recently told the Capital-Star. Dush regularly introduces his chamber’s annual “Sunshine Week” resolution, which recognizes public access laws in mid-March. 

In the “bad old days,” Dush said, “even the budget here in Pennsylvania was done behind closed doors.”

“There’s still a certain amount of that,” he added. “But when it comes to the actual floor debates and the discussions where everybody is involved … it’s critical that everybody gets to know them and there aren’t secret deals being done.”

Dush likened Pennsylvanians to “franchise owners of government,” saying that “franchise owners have every right to know the things that are going on.” 

“People need to know that the Right-to-Know law is in place and that it is a tool that when they feel frustrated about not seeing things that they think should be out there, in public, they should be using it,” said Dush. “We need more franchise owners involved in oversight and watching what’s going on.” 

Liz Wagenseller, the executive director of the Office of Open Records, noted differences in Pennsylvania’s public access law that made it “friendlier” for requesters, namely the tight response deadline. In the commonwealth, agencies have five days to respond, but can request a 30-day extension. 

If that request is denied, the requester can appeal to Wagenseller’s agency — where the government body must defend the denial — and will get a response within 30 days. 

“That is lightning fast compared to a lot of other states,” said Wagenseller. “If you’re concerned about something, you can peek behind the curtain and see what it is that’s going on … knowing that the public is watching and can get records, I think agencies may carefully consider their decisions. And I think that is good for everyone.”

Changes to Right-to-Know

Over a dozen bills seek to change the law. A handful add quasi-public entities to the law — like the Pennsylvania School Boards Association or Homeowners Associations — while others expand exceptions for “burdensome” requests, fragile historical documents or legislator addresses. 

The most recent movement was on House Bill 802, authored by Rep. Liz Hanbidge (D-Montgomery) to exempt certain disability accommodations — like transcripts generated for a deaf mayor — from disclosure. That measure moved out of committee in December and could go before the House chamber as early as next week.

Senate Bill 686, introduced by Dush, advanced through his chamber on a 31-18 vote in June, but hasn’t moved out of committee in the House. That proposal would make it a third-degree felony to intentionally destroy or alter documents subject to Right-to-Know.

His other proposal, Senate Bill 790, which addresses “vexatious” requesters, moved out of a Senate committee in June. Dush described the targeted individuals as someone who had “weaponized” the Right-to-Know process and used their requests to overwhelm a municipality or to act on a personal grudge. 

“Their intent is to drive the local government official crazy,” said Dush.

The bill’s memo notes its support from associations for schools, township supervisors, township commissioners, boroughs and county commissioners. Those bodies can apply for a one-year relief period with OOR from a “vexatious” requester, which Dush called a “cooling off period.”

Wagenseller said the details and exact definition would matter in such a proposal, but noted that public records officers in other states have reported “extreme” harassment. In Connecticut, which has its own vexatious requester law, a man had to be escorted away from the office by police after an assistant hit a silent alarm.

“If it is used as something where it’s someone that’s just annoying because they have a lot of requests, that (definition) I would have concerns about,” said Wagenseller. 

Wagenseller previously shared concerns about the use of AI in the Right-to-Know process, reporting that some of the appeals filed with the agency complicated the work of OOR attorneys. 

She said that the office will need to hire additional attorneys if the growth continues, but that AI itself is still too faulty to lighten the load.

“Our work is just too nuanced and consequential to depend on an evolving technology that hasn’t proved itself to be effective in our legal area. I’m open to having someone change my mind, but currently I don’t see it — in its current form, right now — as a solution,” said Wagenseller.

Outlawing the rapidly growing technology isn’t “a practical solution,” Wagenseller continued, saying she was exploring potential legislation to deal with improper or unverified AI use that overwhelms the system.

“But it’s something that we need to constantly be having conversations about,” she said.

Pennsylvania Capital-Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Pennsylvania Capital-Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Tim Lambert for questions: info@penncapital-star.com.