L.E. Scolforo and The York Dispatch v. The County of York

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Liz Evans Scolforo and :
The York Dispatch, : CASES CONSOLIDATED
Appellants :
:
v. : No. 359 C.D. 2021
:
The County of York :
:

Liz Evans Scolforo, :
:
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 360 C.D. 2021
: Argued: September 12, 2022
The County of York :
:

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY
PRESIDENT JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: July 10, 2023

Before the Court are two consolidated appeals arising out of a Right-to-Know
Law (RTKL)1 request for name, salary, job title, and length of service, including
start and end dates, for employees of the York County Prothonotary’s Office
(Prothonotary) by Liz Evans Scolforo and The York Dispatch (together, Requester).
In the first appeal, Requester argues the Court of Common Pleas of York County
(common pleas) erred in its January 25, 2021 decision (January Decision) affirming
the Final Determination of the Office of Open Records (OOR), which concluded the

1
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.
OOR lacked jurisdiction over the records at issue in Requester’s appeal because
Prothonotary is a judicial agency and the requested records are “of” that judicial
agency. The January Decision also directed York County (County) to refer
Requester’s RTKL request to the 19th Judicial District Records Manager (Judicial
Records Manager). Requester asserts Prothonotary is not a judicial agency but a
county agency, the requested records are those “of” County and not “of” the judicial
agency, and common pleas should not have directed the transfer of the matter to
Judicial Records Manager.
In the second appeal, Requester challenges common pleas’ President Judge
Musti Cook’s (President Judge) March 17, 2021 decision (March Decision) that
confirmed Judicial Records Manager’s decision that followed the matter’s transfer
under the January Decision. Judicial Records Manager ordered the disclosure of the
name, salary, and job title of Prothonotary employees as a financial record, but
redacted from that disclosure the hiring and termination dates (the length of service)
of those employees, reasoning they were not a financial record subject to disclosure.
Requester argues the length of service dates are clearly disclosable under the RTKL
or Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 509, Pa.R.J.A. 509 (Rule 509)
(governing the disclosure of financial records of the judiciary).
Thus, in these appeals, we must determine: (1) if Prothonotary is a judicial
agency; (2) if so, are the requested records of Prothonotary rather than of County;
and (3) if the requested records are of Prothonotary, is the length of an employee’s
service a financial record subject to disclosure? We answer the first two questions
in the affirmative and, therefore, affirm the January Decision upholding the OOR’s
conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction over Requester’s appeal. However, we answer
the last question in the negative, concluding Prothonotary employees’ length of

2
service records bear a “sufficiently close connection” to the “fiscally related”
categories in the RTKL’s definition of financial record and deal with the
disbursement of public monies making them disclosable pursuant to City of
Harrisburg v. Prince, 219 A.3d 602 (Pa. 2019). Therefore, we reverse the March
Decision affirming the redaction of that information from the records provided to
Requester.

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Requests
Requester’s attempts to obtain records relating to Prothonotary employees
have been numerous, and the responses thereto have been conflicting. Requester
first submitted a RTKL request to County on July 28, 2020, requesting “the number
of employees who have resigned from the York County Prothonotary[’s] Office
between Jan[uary] 3, 2020, and July 28, 2020, as well as the number of years of
service each resigning employee had with the office.” (Reproduced Record (R.R.)
at 45a, 172a.) County replied that Prothonotary “is a court office and therefore this
request must be submitted through the court’s RTK office.” (Id. at 45a.)
On July 29, 2020, Requester submitted a request under Rule 509 via email to
Judicial Records Manager.2 Therein, Requester stated “Prothonotary employees are
considered employees of a judicial agency[,]” and “[t]he court has a legal duty to
provide access to financial records[]” (Prior Request). (Id. at 16a, 52a-53a.) Judicial
Records Manager denied the Prior Request, explaining:

Employees in [ P]rothonotary’s office are subject to the joint
supervision of independently elected officials of county government

2
The relevant email communications can be found in the Original Record for 359 C.D.
2021 at Item No. 8 and in the Reproduced Record at pages 44a-63a.
3
 ([ P]rothonotary and the county commissioners) who are not under the
jurisdiction of me, the president judge, nor any other member of the
state judiciary regarding hiring, firing, promoting, demoting,
disciplining, terminating, or compensating those employees. The court
has absolutely no authority over, responsibility for, nor access to any
personnel record of any employee in [ P]rothonotary’s office.
Furthermore, even if we did have access to that information, it would
not be a financial record of funds appropriated to the court subject to
the RTKL as it pertains to the judiciary. As such, your request to this
office remains denied. If you want access to county employee records,
which may or may not be subject to disclosure under the RTKL by the
keeper of those records, you need to direct that request to the county
agency that has access to and control of those records. If you disagree
with my decision, your option is to file an appeal to the president judge.

(Id. at 52a.)
After receiving this denial, Requester emailed the then-president judge of
common pleas and County Solicitor (Solicitor), explaining County told her the
information must come from Judicial Records Manager, and Judicial Records
Manager told her it must come from County. (Id. at 51a.) Further emails were
exchanged in which Requester indicated their “media attorney” confirmed
Prothonotary was a judicial agency position, and Judicial Records Manager
responded Requester’s attorney was incorrect and the records had to be sought from
County. (Id. at 52a-53a.) According to Requester, the then-president judge called
her on July 30, 2020, to explain the court administration office did not have the
records she was requesting and “those records must come from [] County.” (Id. at
50a.) Requester did not appeal this denial.
Instead, on August 10, 2020, Requester sent an email to County, making a
second RTKL request, explaining:

This RTKL request does NOT replace my July 28[, 2020] RTKL
request seeking similar information. I have heard nothing from
[C]ounty about that request since a county official erroneously stated

4
 that I should be getting that information elsewhere. I believe [] County
should still be actively handling the July 28[, 2020,] RTKL request.
Today’s request is merely similar.

If the July 28[, 2020,] request is NOT actively being handled, please
alert me so I may contact the Office of Open Records about my options.
Had [S]olicitor [] ever gotten back to me, I wouldn’t be unsure about
the status.

. . . I am requesting access to salary records for all [P]rothonotary
employees from Jan[uary] 1, 2020, to present, showing name, salary,
job title and length of service, including start and end dates, please.

(Id. at 54a (emphasis omitted).) The next day the Solicitor’s Office responded,
explaining Requester “was advised that [her July 28, 2020] request would have to
be submitted to the” Judicial Records Manager, and “[t]hat request was, therefore,
closed as a County Open Records Request and no further action was taken.” (Id. at
59a.)
Requester filed the request at issue on August 11, 2020 (Request), seeking
electronic copies of “salary records for all [P]rothonotary employees from Jan[uary]
1, 2020, to present, showing name, salary, job title and length of service, including
start and end dates.” (Id. at 64a.) On August 14, 2020, County denied that Request,
explaining:

Based upon statutory language and case law, the records you are
seeking are records of a judicial agency. Under the Pennsylvania Rules
of Judicial Administration, court prothonotaries and their employees
are personnel of the unified judicial system [(UJS)]. [Pennsylvania
Rule of Judicial Administration 102,] Pa.R.J.A. [] 102. Frazier v.
Phila. C[nty.] Off[.] of the Prothonotary, 58 A.3d 858, 859 [(Pa.
Cmwlth.] 2012[)]. Further, their records are deemed judicial records.[3]

3
Although the underlying decisions in this matter refer to the records at issue as “judicial
records,” this term is not defined in the RTKL. Grine v. County of Centre, 138 A.3d 88, 97 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc). “For clarity[] and consistency with RTKL terminology, we recast this
phrase as ‘records of a judicial agency,’” id., unless used in quoted material.
5
The fact that a county pays an employee’s salary who works in a
judicial office “does not affect his status as a judicial employee[.]”[]
County of Lehigh v. P[a.] Lab[.] Rels[.] B[d.], . . . 489 A.2d 1325, 1327
([Pa.] 1985). The Open Records Office has routinely denied such
appeals as they do not have jurisdiction to hear such matters. . . . .

Where the record may also be in the possession of [] County does not
of itself make it an agency record. Records may document an activity
of more than one agency. Where such dual records are also under the
control of the judicial agency and the rules of judicial administration
would not permit disclosure of such records, they may not be disclosed.

In this instance, the Courts have held that permitting the judicial branch
to maintain control over the records which are also considered records
of the judicial agency is appropriate. The Courts have even enjoined a
county from “exercising control over records of the judiciary” related
to open records requests. C[t.] of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty.
v. Off[.] of Open Rec[s.], 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) [(Lackawanna
County)].

[“]The location of the record or an agency’s possession [of a record]
does not guarantee that a record is accessible to the public; rather, the
character of the record controls.” Grine v. County of Centre, 138 A.3d
88[, 95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc)].

The Courts have also held that “to preserve the separation of powers, a
requester was unable to access records of activities of a judicial
employee by seeking the records through a county.” See Lackawanna
C[nty.] case.

As a result, despite your threats to file an appeal and criticisms
regarding a lack of transparency of this office, this office cannot
consider such statements in responding to a request and is required to
follow the law. As such, your request for these records is denied.

The proper appeal is the denial of your request from the 19th Judicial
District. Such appeals follow [] Rule of Judicial Administration 509[,

6
 Pa.R.J.A. 509].[4] Please note that Rule 509 does not mirror the rules
or definitions as outlined in the RTKL.
....
(Id. at 64a-65a.)

B. OOR Final Determination
Requester appealed County’s denial to the OOR, which dismissed the appeal
for lack of jurisdiction over the records at issue, because Prothonotary was a judicial
agency.5 In its Final Determination, the OOR explained:

The RTKL defines a “judicial agency” as “[a] court of the
Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the [UJS].” [Section
102 of the RTKL,] 65 P.S. § 67.102. The “[UJS]” is defined by the
Judicial Code and the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration.
42 Pa.C.S. § 102; Pa.R.J.A. 102. In particular, the term “system and
related personnel” is defined to include the following:

Personnel of the system and related staff. The term
includes district attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs and
other officers serving process or enforcing orders,
registers of wills, prothonotaries, clerks of courts, clerks
of the orphans’ court division, coroners, jury

4
Rule 509 governs access to financial records of the UJS. Pa.R.J.A. 509. Rule 509(c)(1)
provides that requests are initially made to a records manager. Pa.R.J.A. 509(c)(1). If the request
is denied by the records manager, an appeal may be filed with the president judge of that judicial
district. Id. Rule 509(a) sets forth the policy regarding financial records and defines such records,
stating:

(a) General Policy. Financial records of the [UJS] are presumed to be open to any
member of the public for inspection or copying during established business hours.
The term “financial records” is defined as any account, contract, invoice or
equivalent dealing with: 1) the receipt or disbursement of funds appropriated to the
system; or 2) acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies, materials, equipment
or property secured through funds appropriated to the system.

Pa.R.J.A. 509(a).
5
The OOR’s Final Determination can be found in the Original Record for docket number
359 C.D. 2021 at Item No. 8 and in the Reproduced Record at pages 5a-13a.
7
 commissioners, probation officials, and the related
personnel of all of the foregoing.

42 Pa.C.S. § 102; Pa.R.J.A. 102. The Judicial Code distinguishes
between “personnel of the system,” defined as “[j]udicial officers,
personal staff, administrative staff and central staff,” and “related
staff,” which includes “[a]ll individuals employed at public expense
who serve the unified judicial system” but “does not include personnel
of the system.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102. . . . .

(R.R. at 8a (second, third, and sixth alteration added).) Distinguishing Miller v.
County of Centre, 173 A.3d 1162 (Pa. 2017), which was cited by Requester, the
OOR first explained:

The term “administrative staff” is defined as:

All individuals employed in the business of a court,
including the personnel of the office of the clerk of the
court of common pleas, but the term does not include
judicial officers or their personal staff. The term includes
the clerks or prothonotaries of the Supreme Court,
Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court and their
staffs.

[42 Pa.C.S. § 102.] . . . . Although prothonotaries of the courts of
common pleas are not expressly identified in this definition, the Judicial
Code defines “Office of the clerk of the court of common pleas” as
follows:

A term employed in this title to refer generally to the
administrative staff of the courts of common pleas and the
Philadelphia Municipal Court responsible for the receipt
of documents transmitted to the court by litigants and the
transmission of notice of orders entered by and process
issued under the authority of the court. The business of
such staff shall be divided among the personnel of the
offices of the prothonotary, the clerk of the courts and the
clerk of the orphans’ court division in the manner provided
by or pursuant to Chapter 27 (relating to office of the clerk
of the court of common pleas). Except as otherwise
provided by statute, the term does not imply the
8
 unification of the administration, personnel or operations
of any or all of such offices.

[42 Pa.C.S. § 102.]

(Id. at 9a-10a (second and third alteration added, emphasis omitted).)
The OOR reasoned that, although Miller held that district attorneys are not
“judicial agencies” as defined by the RTKL, “prothonotaries, like clerks of the court
of common pleas, are ‘administrative staff’ and, it follows . . . that prothonotaries
are also ‘personnel of the system,’ as defined in the Judicial Code.” (Id. at 8a-10a.)
The OOR found support in Smith v. Philadelphia Office of Judicial Records (Pa.
Cmwlth., No. 945 C.D. 2019, filed September 25, 2020), slip op. at 3-4,6 in which
this Court noted it had “consistently held that a court’s filing office, such as a
prothonotary’s office, clerk of courts’ office, or . . . the [Office of Judicial Records],
are included within the RTKL’s definition of ‘judicial agency.’” (Id. at 10a
(emphasis omitted).) The OOR held “[b]ecause county prothonotaries are
‘administrative staff’ and, as a result, fall within the definition of ‘personnel of the
[UJS],’ they are considered judicial agencies under the RTKL.” (Id. at 11a.) The
OOR explained it lacks “jurisdiction over the records of a judicial agency, including
those in the possession of an agency within the OOR’s jurisdiction.” (Id. at 12a.)
However, the OOR also noted that, pursuant to the RTKL, judicial agencies must
still disclose financial records, which includes salary information. (Id.)7

6
Pursuant to Rule 126(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure, Pa.R.A.P.
126(b), and Section 414(a) of the Court’s Internal Operating Procedures, 210 Pa. Code § 69.414(a),
unreported panel decisions of this Court may be cited for their persuasive value.
7
In a footnote, the OOR stated it

recognizes that this holding puts [] Requester in an unusual position. The
information being requested, salaries and basic job information for agency
(Footnote continued on next page…)
9
 C. Common Pleas’ January Decision
Requester appealed the Final Determination to common pleas, arguing the
requested records are County records, other counties routinely provide identical
information to Requester, and Judicial Records Manager stated in his response
Prothonotary employees are under the joint supervision of Prothonotary and County
Commissioners. Requester, citing Rosenwald v. Barbieri, 462 A.2d 644 (Pa. 1983),
also argued “[P]rothonotary employees are ‘related staff’ of the judiciary ‘whose
function aids the judicial process but who are not supervised by the courts.’” (R.R.
at 146a.) County responded that, pursuant to the Rules of Judicial Administration
and Frazier, court prothonotaries are part of the UJS, and, thus, part of the judiciary,
precluding the OOR from having jurisdiction. County requested common pleas to
consider the separation of powers doctrine under the Pennsylvania Constitution8 as
precluding a county or local agency from disclosing jointly held records of a judicial
agency, the disclosure of which must be within the judicial agency’s purview, citing
Grine, 138 A.3d at 95.
After citing the relevant statutes and case law, common pleas affirmed the
Final Determination and directed County to refer the Request to Judicial Records

employees, is clearly public. See [Section 708(b)(6)(ii) of the RTKL,] 65 P.S.
§ 67.708(b)(6)(ii); Pa.R.J.A. 509(a). [] Requester sought the information via Rule
509 . . . and was denied. [] Requester then sought the information via the RTKL
and was denied. Here, based on the analysis above, [] Requester’s appeal of the
RTKL denial is being dismissed; however, that [] Requester should be provided the
requested information is not in dispute. The question is merely who is responsible
for providing it. Unfortunately, this Final Determination will not resolve that
question.

(R.R. at 12a n.6.)
8
Article V, section 10 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, PA. CONST. art. V, § 10 (outlining
our Supreme Court’s general supervisory authority over the UJS).
10
Manager.9 In a thorough and well-written decision, common pleas explained “there
was no avenue to access documents of the judiciary” until the Supreme Court
adopted Rule 509, which “permitted Pennsylvanians access to financial records of
the judiciary, [while] limiting release that would compromise personal information
or security.” (January Decision at 8-9.) Rule 509 also provided, common pleas
explained, a procedure for accessing records “through a records manager and a
permissive appeal to the president judge of the county court of common pleas.” (Id.)
Subsequently, the RTKL was enacted and provided for access to the financial
records of judicial agencies. As to whether the responsive records fell under the
purview of County as a local agency, or were records of a judicial agency that could
be released if authorized by a judicial records manager as “a ‘financial record’ as
narrowly defined by the RTKL,” common pleas held “the records in question are
judicial records and [] County has no jurisdictional authority to release them without
direction to do so by the judiciary.” (Id. at 14-15.)
Common pleas explained “prothonotaries and their employees are
administrative staff of the [c]ourt” and “system personnel,” and Miller, which
involved a district attorney, was distinguishable. (Id. at 15-16.) Common pleas
indicated that although Miller held district attorneys and their employees are not
personnel of the judiciary, “extending [Miller’s] holding to cover all other members
of the ‘system and related personnel’ of the UJS would be misplaced.” (Id. at 16.)
Unlike district attorneys, whose power and duties are laid out in the Pennsylvania
Constitution as being part of the executive branch, common pleas stated “the office
of the prothonotary was inextricably tied to the function of the Judiciary.” (Id. at
17.)

9
The January Decision can be found in the Original Record for docket number 359 C.D.
2021 at Item No. 2, and in the Reproduced Record at pages 140a-62a.
11
 Turning to whether the responsive records were “of” a judicial agency or “of”
a local agency, common pleas examined Section 1620 of The County Code, 16 P.S.
§ 1620,10 which explicitly states county commissioners are to “represent the judges
of the court of common pleas” in salary and compensation negotiations and “sit on
behalf of judges” in such negotiations, which will not impair the hiring, discharge,
and supervision of employees. (Id. at 17-18.) Common pleas held “[a] record does
not need to be generated by the agency receiving a RTKL request to qualify as ‘of’
that agency,” and it was the subject matter, rather than the location of where it was
stored, that mattered in the inquiry. (Id. at 19 (citing Bagwell v. Dep’t of Educ., 76
A.3d 81 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).)) “Given this context,” common pleas concluded “it
becomes apparent that the wage and salary records requested are judicial records
under the control and supervision of the judiciary,” and the requested records were
“of” the judicial agency, not County. (Id.)
Regarding the identified separation of powers concerns, common pleas noted
the Prior Request had been made to the judiciary and responded to by Judicial

10
Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, as amended, 16 P.S. § 1620. Section 1620 provides:

The salaries and compensation of county officers shall be as now or hereafter fixed
by law. The salaries and compensation of all appointed officers and employes who
are paid from the county treasury shall be fixed by the salary board created by this
act for such purposes: Provided, however, That with respect to representation
proceedings before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board or collective
bargaining negotiations involving any or all employes paid from the county
treasury, the board of county commissioners shall have the sole power and
responsibility to represent judges of the court of common pleas, the county and all
elected or appointed county officers having any employment powers over the
affected employes. The exercise of such responsibilities by the county
commissioners shall in no way affect the hiring, discharging and supervising rights
and obligations with respect to such employes as may be vested in the judges or
other county officers.

Id.
12
Records Manager, whereas the Request before it was addressed to County and
answered by its open records officer. (Id. at 20.) Common pleas noted this was
significant because before the court was “an appeal from a decision rendered by the
OOR after a request was made to a local agency, County, to produce its records.
Critically, it is not an appeal from a decision rendered by the [Judicial] Records
Manager of a judicial agency,” which would have involved different underlying
procedures for requests, disclosure, and appeals. (Id. at 22.) As such, common pleas
confined its analysis to the issue expressly before it, the appeal from the OOR’s
determination, and declined to consider whether the requested documents were
disclosable financial records under Rule 509.
Ultimately, common pleas held that because the requested records were “of”
both a judicial agency, Prothonotary, and a local agency, County, the local agency
had to defer to the judicial agency’s disclosure decision. (Id. at 22-23.) Accordingly,
common pleas denied the appeal and affirmed the OOR’s Final Determination. In
addition, common pleas directed County to refer the Request to Judicial Records
Manager “for review and determination whether the documents requested should be
released consistent with this opinion.” (Id. at 1.)
Requester appealed and filed, as directed, a Concise Statement of Errors
Complained of on Appeal (Concise Statement) pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925(b), Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Therein, Requester relevantly
argued:

2. The [c]ourt erred in concluding that the wage and salary records
requested are judicial records under the control and supervision of the
judiciary. . . .

3. The [c]ourt erred in referring the case to [] Judicial Records Manager
for review and determination whether the documents requested should
be released consistent with this opinion. . . .
13
 4. The [c]ourt erred in failing to adequately discern whether the records
qualify as records ‘of’ a particular agency by conducting a thorough
review of the subject matter of the records sought. . . . The [c]ourt
engaged in an inadequate analysis to determine which office was
primarily responsible for hiring, paying and supervising [P]rothonotary
employees. By contrast, the [c]ourt should have used the more in-depth
approach that was used in Philadelphia Dist[rict] Attorney’s Off[ice] v.
Stover, 176 A.3d 1024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017)[,] to determine whether the
salary records sought were the primary responsibility of the
Prothonotary or the court system.

(Concise Statement ¶¶ 2, 4 (internal quotation marks omitted).11)
In its Rule 1925(a) Memorandum Opinion (1925(a) Opinion),12 common pleas
stated the January Decision sufficiently explained its rulings, but separately
addressed the errors complained of in the Concise Statement. Common pleas
responded to the second alleged error, explaining:

If [] Prothonotary and [its] employees are ‘related staff’ then the natural
conclusion is that their financial records are county records and free to
be released. However, since we have concluded that [] Prothonotary
and its staff fall outside the term ‘related staff’ as defined in [] Miller,
then it naturally follows that the financial records associated with them
are at least simultaneously records of the judiciary and [C]ounty
records, if not solely records of the judiciary. Given this conclusion,
despite the fact that the financial records are held by County, the
character of the records suggest that they are records of the judiciary
and therefore can only be released with approval of the judiciary.

(1925(a) Op. at 6-7.)
With regard to the third alleged error, common pleas explained Requester
cited no authority as to why it erred and “[t]his portion of the Order was meant to

11
The Concise Statement can be found in the Original Record for 359 C.D. 2021 at Item
No. 3.
12
The 1925(a) Opinion can be found in the Original Record for 359 C.D. 2021 at Item No.
4.
14
expedite the matter as neither the OOR nor this [c]ourt hold[s] the belief that
[Requester is] not entitled to the financial records sought, merely that [Requester]
followed the wrong track in attempting to gain access to the records.” (Id. at 7.)
Notably, common pleas stated “the [c]ourt maintains that [Requester is] entitled to,
at minimum, the financial records they seek with redacted private information but[,]
due to the procedural posture of this proceeding, it would be inappropriate for us to
grant [Requester’s] requested relief.” (Id. at 9.) Rather, common pleas explained,
this decision had to be made on “the judiciary track,” which is why the court
“direct[ed] that the matter be submitted to [] [J]udicial [R]ecords [M]anager of the
judiciary for proper determination of entitlement.” (Id.)
Finally, as to the fourth alleged error, common pleas explained it did engage
in a comprehensive and thorough analysis. It looked at the character of the
documents, including name, salary records, location of the documents, source of
funding, “character of the function that [] Prothonotary provides, and many other
factors,” to reach its conclusions. (Id. at 10.)

D. Judicial Records Manager’s Review and March Decision
In accordance with common pleas’ January Decision, the Request was
submitted to Judicial Records Manager for review under the RTKL and Rule 509.
On February 8, 2021, Judicial Records Manager issued a determination. Therein,
Judicial Records Manager stated:

[Requester] is requesting information that is contained, presumably, in
the personnel files of these employees and other records maintained by
[][C]ounty’s human resources department. Because these records are
not in the court’s possession, control or supervision, but rather are in
the possession, control and supervision of [][C]ounty, I will treat this
as a request for the court to authorize [] [C]ounty to release the
information in its possession. I have not been presented with any
15
 authority for the proposition that I can cause or compel [][C]ounty to
actually release or withhold the information.

....

The names, salaries, and job titles of employees of [][P]rothonotary are
within the scope of the RTKL as it pertains to the judiciary, at least
under the statute’s definition of a financial record, so I authorize []
[C]ounty to release that information to [Requester]. The length of
service, including start and end dates of employment, exceeds the scope
of the RTKL as it pertains to the judiciary, so I do not authorize
[][C]ounty to release that information to her.

(R.R. at 166a.) In accordance with Judicial Records Manager’s decision, Requester
was given a spreadsheet reflecting Prothonotary employees’ first and last names,
hourly rates, annual salaries, and full titles. (Id. at 176a.) However, the employees’
hiring dates and termination dates were redacted. (Id.)
Requester appealed this “Rule 509 determination” to President Judge,
asserting the redaction of the length of service information was not consistent with
Section 708(b)(6) of the RTKL, which made this information public. (Id. at 168a.)
On March 17, 2021,13 President Judge confirmed the determination of Judicial
Records Manager and denied Requester’s appeal. President Judge agreed with the
January Decision’s conclusion that the records sought were those “of” a judicial
agency for the reasons offered in the January Decision. President Judge held the
plain language of Sections 102 and 304 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.102, 304, did
not include an employee’s length of service in the definition of financial record.
(March Decision at 2-3.) In addition, Requester’s reliance on Section 708(b)(6) of
the RTKL as requiring disclosure was misplaced because Section 708, entitled
“Exceptions to public records,” did not apply to records of a judicial agency, which

13
The March Decision can be found in the Original Record for 360 C.D. 2021, Item No. 2
and in the Reproduced Record at 202a-05a.
16
are not “public records” as defined by the RTKL. 65 P.S. § 67.102 (“A record,
including a financial record, of a Commonwealth or local agency that: (1) is not
exempt under [S]ection 708.”). (Id. at 204a (emphasis in original).) Requester
appealed, and Requester’s two appeals were consolidated for review by this Court.14

II. DISCUSSION
Requester raises three arguments on appeal. First, county prothonotaries are
not “judicial agencies” but are “local agencies,” which renders the full RTKL
applicable to the requested records. Second, common pleas erred in failing to
consider the nature of the records which would show the records themselves were
not “of” the judiciary, but instead evince a transaction of County - paying
prothonotary employees as County employees. And, third, common pleas erred in
transferring the Request to Judicial Records Manager, and President Judge erred in
affirming the redaction of the length of service of Prothonotary employees from the
responsive records, which should be disclosable under the RTKL and/or Rule 509.15
County responds there was no error in common pleas affirming the OOR’s
Final Determination in the January Decision, because both correctly held

14
“Our standard of review in a [RTKL] case is whether an error of law was committed,
constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial
evidence. Our scope of review is plenary.” Silver v. Borough of Wilkinsburg, 58 A.3d 125, 127
n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
15
The Pennsylvania Newsmedia Association (PNA) filed an amicus curiae brief in support
of Requester’s position. PNA adopts Requester’s argument that length of service records are
records of the county, rather than of the judiciary. PNA maintains the responsive records are
subject to disclosure pursuant to Section 708(b)(6)(ii), which expressly directs disclosure of
“length of service of a public official or an agency employee.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6)(ii), as well
as Sections 102 and 304, and City of Harrisburg, 219 A.3d 602. Alternatively, if the Court finds
the records to be records of a “judicial agency” subject to the requirements of Rule 509, PNA
argues the length of service records must still be disclosed because they constitute “financial
records” under that rule. (PNA’s Br. at 4.)
17
Prothonotary is a judicial agency and its employees are personnel of the judicial
system notwithstanding their being paid by County, the responsive records are of a
judicial agency, and County does not have authority to release those records without
being directed by a judicial agency. County further responds, President Judge
correctly concluded in the March Decision the length of service information was not
a disclosable financial record under the RTKL, and, as a result, the redaction of this
information was not in error.

A. The RTKL
Preliminarily, we recognize the RTKL was implemented as “remedial
legislation to facilitate government transparency and promote accountability,” and
is “construed to maximize access to public records” in an agency’s possession.
McKelvey v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 255 A.3d 399, 400 (Pa. 2021). The RTKL was
also implemented “[t]o ‘prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials,
and make public officials accountable for their actions,’ [and] the RTKL places the
statutory duty of disclosing public records ‘solely on the government agency.’”
Energy Transfer v. Friedman, 265 A.3d 421, 428-29 (Pa. 2021) (quoting McKelvey,
255 A.3d at 400). The RTKL mandates a Commonwealth agency or a local agency
to “provide public records in accordance with the” RTKL without regard to a
requester’s “intended use of the public record . . . unless otherwise provided by law.”
Sections 301 and 302 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.301, 67.302. The RTKL defines
“public record” as a record of a Commonwealth agency or local agency that “is not
exempt from being disclosed under any other Federal or State law or regulation or
judicial order or decree.” Section 102 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.102. A record in

18
the possession of a Commonwealth agency or local agency “shall be presumed to be
a public record.” Section 305(a) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.305(a).
However, the RTKL treats the records of judicial agencies differently, and
only “a financial record in the possession of a judicial agency shall be presumed to
be available in accordance with this act.” 65 P.S. § 67.305(b). Sections 304 and 305
of the RTKL set forth that, unlike other agencies, the presumption of the public
nature of a record for judicial agencies does not arise until after the judicial agency
reviews the record and decides whether it is a “financial record.” 65 P.S. §§ 67.304,
67.305. The RTKL defines “financial record,” in relevant part, as follows:

(1) Any account, voucher or contract dealing with:

(i) the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency; or

(ii) an agency’s acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies,
materials, equipment or property.

(2) The salary or other payments or expenses paid to an officer or
employee of an agency, including the name and title of the officer or
employee.

65 P.S. § 67.102.
Because the RTKL distinguishes between judicial agencies and other
government agencies, we first examine whether Prothonotary is a judicial agency as
that determines what, if any, records are subject to disclosure.

B. Whether Prothonotary is a judicial agency and its employees are
personnel of the judicial system
1. Parties’ Arguments
Requester argues common pleas applied an overly narrow interpretation of the
RTKL, and prothonotaries are local agencies for purposes of the RTKL. Requester

19
acknowledges “the majority of the records maintained in a prothonotar[y’s] office
are judicial records. . . . [H]owever, prothonotaries do not produce or create those
judicial records; those judicial records are created in legal proceedings by attorneys,
litigants, and judges. The prothonotary’s office simply maintains them.”
(Requester’s Brief (Br.) at 16.) Relying on Miller, Requester argues prothonotaries
are similar to district attorneys’ offices and are “related staff,” which “covers those
whose function aids the judicial process but who are not supervised by the courts.”
(Id. at 19 (quoting Miller 173 A.3d at 238-39).) Moreover, Requester cites article
IX, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution,16 which references prothonotaries
and district attorneys together as county officers, to argue the two offices should be
treated the same and common pleas erred in distinguishing Miller. (Id. at 19-20.)
Citing Frazier, County contends prothonotaries, like clerks of court, are
judicial agencies and that Miller is distinguishable because it involved a district
attorney and its staff, not a prothonotary, whose work and activities are considered
functions of a court system. (County’s Br. at 8.) County stresses prothonotaries and
their personnel are “personnel of the system,” and, therefore, part of a “judicial
agency” for purposes of the RTKL. County argues the mere fact it pays the salary
of Prothonotary employees does not transform Prothonotary from a judicial agency
into a local one, citing County of Lehigh, 489 A.2d at 1327.

16
Article IX, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution states, in relevant part: “County
officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders,
treasurers, sheriffs, register of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of courts, and such
others as may from time to time be provided by law.” PA. CONST. art. IX, § 4.
20
 2. Analysis
To determine whether Prothonotary is a “judicial agency,” the Court must
interpret the RTKL. The Statutory Construction Act of 1972 (SCA), 1 Pa.C.S.
§§ 1501-1991, emphasizes the objective of our interpretation is to ascertain and
effectuate the General Assembly’s intent. Section 1921(a) of the SCA, 1 Pa.C.S.
§ 1921(a). A statute’s plain language generally provides the best indication of
legislative intent. 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(b). “However, if the words of the statute are not
free from ambiguity, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by
considering, inter alia, the occasion and necessity for the statute, the object or policy
goals to be obtained, and the consequences of a particular interpretation. 1 Pa.C.S.
§ 1921(c).” Miller, 173 A.3d at 1168.
Section 102 of the RTKL defines “judicial agency” as “[a] court of the
Commonwealth or any other entity or office of the [UJS].” 65 P.S. § 67.102
(emphasis added). The UJS is defined by the Rules of Judicial Administration and
by the Judicial Code. Miller, 173 A.3d at 1169. The term “personnel of the system”
includes “[j]udicial officers, personal staff, administrative staff and central staff.”
Section 102 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 102; see Rule 102 of the Pennsylvania
Rules of Judicial Administration, Pa.R.J.A. 102. “Administrative staff” is defined
as “[a]ll individuals employed in the business of a court, including the personnel of
the office of the clerk of the court of common pleas, but the term does not include
judicial officers or their personal staff.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102. The definition also states:
“The term includes the clerks or prothonotaries of the Supreme Court, the Superior
Court, and the Commonwealth Court and their staffs.” Id. “System and related
personnel” includes “district attorneys, public defenders, sheriffs and other officers
serving process or enforcing orders, registers of wills, prothonotaries, clerks of the

21
courts, clerks of the orphans’ court division, coroners, jury commissioners, probation
officials, and the personnel of all of the foregoing.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (emphasis
added); see also Pa.R.J.A. 102. “Related staff,” by contrast, includes “[a]ll
individuals employed at public expense who serve the [UJS], but the term does not
include personnel of the system.” 42 Pa.C.S. § 102 (emphasis added). “These
definitions[] clearly distinguish between ‘personnel of the system’ and ‘related
staff.’” Rosenwald, 462 A.2d at 647.
Consistent with identifying prothonotaries as “personnel of the system,”
subchapter B of Chapter 27 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 2731-2738, entitled
“Prothonotaries,” addresses, among other items, the powers and duties of a
prothonotary and the staffing of the office of prothonotary. While a prothonotary is
an elected county office, the powers and duties of a prothonotary relate to the
business of the court, including administering oaths, entering civil judgments, using
the county court’s seal, and “[e]xercis[ing] the authority of the prothonotary as an
officer of the court.” Section 2737(5) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2737(5).
As to a prothonotary’s staff, who are also considered “personnel of the system,”
“[t]he prothonotary may appoint and remove such deputies and other administrative
staff of the office of the prothonotary as may be necessary.” Section 2735(a) of the
Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2735(a). Further, a prothonotary has the authority to fix
the compensation and duties of the prothonotary office’s staff, unless otherwise
provided by statute, home rule charter, or optional plan, and, if the compensation is
set by a county salary board, the prothonotary must be a member of that board for
the purpose. 42 Pa.C.S. § 2735(c).
This Court has held, in the context of a request submitted to the Philadelphia
County Office of Prothonotary for an autopsy report, that court prothonotaries are

22
personnel of the UJS. Frazier, 58 A.3d at 859. “We have consistently held that a
court’s filing office, such as a prothonotary’s office, clerk of courts’ office, or, . . .
the [Office of Judicial Records], are included within the RTKL’s definition of
‘judicial agency.’” Smith, slip op. at 10 (emphasis added). See also League of
Women Voters of Greater Pittsburgh v. Allegheny Cnty., 819 A.2d 155, 158 n.12
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (holding “clerks of court and prothonotaries are personnel of
the [UJS]”) (emphasis added). As the precedent makes clear, prothonotaries, like
clerks of court, are personnel of the UJS. Although Requester urges us to consider
a prothonotary’s office a “local agency” in one context and a “judicial agency” in
another, such interpretation is inconsistent with the statutory language, rules, and
precedent, which make prothonotary employees UJS personnel subject to the hiring,
firing, and supervision of the prothonotary, a judicial agency.
We disagree with Requester’s position that prothonotaries are akin to district
attorneys, which would make them “related staff,” not a judicial agency, under
Miller. In Miller, our Supreme Court held district attorneys, while identified as
“system and related personnel,” constituted “related staff” and not “judicial
agencies.” 173 A.3d at 1169. The Supreme Court explained:

Because district attorneys are “system and related personnel,” but are
not “personnel of the [UJS],” it follows that they are “related staff.”
“Related staff” expressly are not “personnel of the system.” A fortiori,
such staff cannot be personnel or entities or offices of the [UJS].
Rather, “related staff” are “those whose function aids the judicial
process but who are not supervised by the courts.” [] Under the plain
language of the RTKL, the Judicial Code, and the Rules of Judicial
Administration, district attorneys (like public defenders, sheriffs, and
others identified as “system and related personnel”) are not “judicial
agencies.” Accordingly, [the district attorney] cannot invoke the
protections for judicial agencies provided by the RTKL.

Id.
23
 As stated in the January Decision, “[c]omparing the office of the prothonotary,
which aids the court in its essential daily functions, and the office of the district
attorney, an entity that serves the executive branch and acts as the chief enforcer of
the [C]ommonwealth, would be improper.” (January Decision at 17.) We agree
with this assessment, as it is based upon the particular powers and duties of the office
of prothonotary, which serve the courts of common pleas as set forth in the Judicial
Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2737. Under those principles, Prothonotary is a judicial agency.
However, this conclusion does not end our inquiry because Requester challenges
common pleas’ determination that the requested records were “of” the judicial
agency, Prothonotary, rather than “of” a local agency, County. We turn to this issue
next.

C. Whether common pleas erred in concluding the requested records are “of”
a judicial agency
1. Parties’ Arguments
Requester argues that, if Prothonotary is a judicial agency, the Request, which
sought basic salary information “about a prothonotary’s office” was submitted to
County, and “did not seek records created by or in the possession of []
[P]rothonotary.” (Requester’s Br. at 21 (emphasis in original).) As a result,
Requester contends the requested records are not records “of” the judiciary. (Id. at
22.) Requester asserts Lackawanna County and Grine establish that whether a
record is “of” a particular agency depends on whether the record “‘documents’ a
‘transaction or activity of the agency.’” (Requester’s Br. at 22 (quoting Grine, 138
A.3d at 94-95).) Applying this standard, Requester asserts, leads to the conclusion
the requested records are “of” County, not because County has possession and
control of the records, but because the character of the records, information

24
regarding employment, make them records “of” County. Requester distinguishes
the records requested here from those created and maintained as part of a legal
proceeding by a prothonotary’s office for judicial purposes and for the benefit of the
judiciary, such as a court order, Smith, slip op. at 10; docket entries in a criminal
court docket, Nixon v. Philadelphia County Clerk of Courts (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 706
C.D. 2016, filed November 14, 2017), slip op. at 3; certified sentencing orders, Faulk
v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, 116 A.3d 1183, 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015); or an
autopsy report, Frazier, 58 A.3d at 859-60. (Requester’s Br. at 22.) In contrast to
these records, Requester posits a “County payroll record is a record of County,
regardless of the jobs of the employees reflected in that [] record, or where it is kept,”
and, therefore, are subject to the RTKL and the OOR’s jurisdiction. (Id. at 23.)
County replies that records may document the activity of more than one
agency and where such “dual records” are “of” a judicial agency and “of” a local
agency, their disclosure is determined by the judicial agency. County agrees it is the
character of the record, not which agency created the records or holds the records,
that controls their disclosure to the public. (County’s Br. at 11 (citing Grine, 138
A.3d at 95; Bagwell, 76 A.3d 81).) County asserts, however, the fact it pays
Prothonotary’s employees does not make the records related to those payments
records solely of a local agency. County argues the responsive records were created
on behalf of employees of Prothonotary, a judicial agency, and reflected the activity
of Prothonotary, similar to the records requested from the counties in Grine and
those which Lackawanna County found to be records of a judicial agency and not
disclosable by the county without judicial agency approval. To hold otherwise,
County asserts, would violate the separation of powers doctrine by allowing an
executive agency to disclose records reflecting the activity of the judicial branch

25
which could interfere with a judicial agency’s supervision of its employees.
(County’s Br. at 12.) County argues the process involved in a judicial agency’s
consideration of whether its records are disclosable differs from the process of a
local agency’s consideration of whether its records are disclosable, with each having
its own presumptions, burdens, and appeals procedures. These differences, County
asserts, may result in substantively different responses to the same request, and
Requester cannot avoid the limitations associated with the records of a judicial
agency by making a request to County and claiming the records are of the local
agency. (Id. at 15.)

2. Analysis
The OOR is “per se vested with jurisdiction to” determine, initially, if it has
subject matter jurisdiction. Stover, 176 A.3d at 1027. While the OOR has subject
matter jurisdiction to hear appeals from state and local agencies, it does not have
jurisdiction to review appeals from determinations of a judicial agency. Id. The
OOR also does not have subject matter jurisdiction to review the records of a judicial
agency to determine if they are disclosable under the RTKL. See Grine, 138 A.3d
at 99 (stating the “OOR lacks jurisdiction over appeals involving records of a judicial
agency” (citation omitted)); Lackawanna County, 2 A.3d at 813-14 (stating records
of a judicial agency are “not subject to the jurisdiction of the OOR” and the OOR’s
attempt to expand that jurisdiction in a RTKL appeal to order disclosure of such
records violated the separation of powers doctrine). Here, the OOR reviewed
Requester’s appeal from County’s denial, agreed the records requested were those
of a judicial agency, and disclaimed having subject matter jurisdiction over those

26
records, “including those in the possession of an agency within the OOR’s
jurisdiction.” (R.R. at 12a.)
Both parties agree it is the character of the record that controls whether the
record is “of” the judiciary or “of” a local agency, which will then govern the
standard used to determine if the record is disclosable and which entity, the OOR or
a court of common pleas, has subject matter jurisdiction over any related appeal. In
making this determination, courts examine whether the record is produced by the
agency, reflects an activity or operation of the agency, or documents the transactions
of the agency. If the subject matter of a requested record reflects the agency’s
operations, it is “of” that agency.
In Lackawanna County, two substantially identical requests were made to
Lackawanna County seeking “inappropriate e[]mails from or to any e[]mail accounts
used by” the director of the county’s Office of Domestic Relations relating to the
director’s suspension. 2 A.3d at 812. Lackawanna County denied the request, and
the requester appealed to the OOR. During the pendency of the appeal, the district
court administrator for the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas submitted
an affidavit and letter to the OOR “stating that [the director]’s e[]mails were records
of the judiciary, and that the RTKL was not applicable to the judiciary.” Id. The
OOR granted the requester’s appeal and ordered Lackawanna County to release the
records. In doing so, the OOR reasoned the director was a judicial employee even
though he was paid by Lackawanna County because he was supervised by the
judiciary, but his emails were Lackawanna County records because the County “had
access to them and control over them as it provided the court with its computer
system on which they were located.” Id. Thus, the OOR found the emails were local
agency records and public pursuant to the RTKL. Id.

27
 The Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, through the Administrative
Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC), appealed to this Court arguing the director
was a court-supervised employee, and the fact that the director’s salary was paid by
Lackawanna County was of no moment. Id. at 813. Therefore, AOPC asserted his
emails were records of a judicial agency not subject to disclosure pursuant to the
RTKL, and the OOR had no jurisdiction to order the emails to be released. It also
argued the separation of powers doctrine was violated because the OOR “has no
jurisdiction over court documents and [their disclosure] vitiates the general
supervisory authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania over all courts and
personnel in the [UJS].” Id.
This Court agreed with both arguments, explaining:

As there is no allegation that the records at issue here are financial
records, and as it is axiomatic that any record produced by a judicial
employee is a record of a judicial agency, we need only consider
whether [the director] was a judicial employee in order to decide this
case.

Id. This Court concluded the director was an employee of the Lackawanna County
Court of Common Pleas because Section 961 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 961,
requires every court of common pleas to have a domestic relations section, and the
director’s position made him “an administrative staff employee of the [UJS].”
Lackawanna Cnty., 2 A.3d at 813. Thus, any records he produced were “of” a
judicial agency and not subject to the jurisdiction of the OOR. Id. The fact the
director was paid by Lackawanna County “d[id] not affect his status as a judicial
employee.” Id. (citing County of Lehigh, 489 A.2d at 1327). Regarding Lackawanna
County’s storage of the records, the Court reasoned:

28
 Just because the [c]ounty provides logistic support to the courts does
not mean that every record stored on what Lackawanna County
provides as part of its function to support the court makes it a [c]ounty
record—those records always remain the records of the court.
Otherwise, every record ever generated by a [c]ounty court, including
the draft opinions and law clerk memorandums, would be accessible
through the RTKL simply by submitting the request to the [c]ounty
instead, an absurd result that would make Section 304 of the RTKL
meaningless. See 1 Pa.C.S. § 1921(a) (“Every statute shall be
construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions.”), and
1 Pa.C.S. § 1922(1) (“[T]he General Assembly does not intend a result
that is absurd, impossible of execution or unreasonable.”).

Lackawanna County, 2 A.3d at 813 (emphasis added). The Court concluded the
OOR’s order, in addition to violating the RTKL, “constituted a blatant and
unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers doctrine.” Id. at 814.
Moreover, the Court observed:

Among the judiciary’s powers is the ability to supervise its own
personnel without interference from another branch of
government. See First Judicial Dist[. of Pa. v. Pa. Hum. Rels.
Comm’n,] 727 A.2d[, 1110,] 1112[ (Pa. 1999)]; Cnty. of Lehigh, . . .
489 A.2d at 1327; L.J.S [v. State Ethics Comm’n,] 744 [A.2d 798,] 801
[(Pa. Cmwlth. 2000)]. An inescapable corollary to this power is that no
administrative agency may exercise control over the records generated
by personnel of a judicial agency.

Id. (emphasis added).
Similarly, cell phone records were found to be records of the judiciary in
Grine notwithstanding that the cell phone bills were paid by the county. There,
Centre County responded to a RTKL request asking for cell phone records of a
common pleas judge, a magisterial district judge, and a district attorney (DA).
Because Centre County paid the cell phone bills for the judges pursuant to a contract
with Verizon (but not the DA who used her personal cell phone), and Centre County
had access to the cell phone records, the request was given to the Centre County
29
open records officer. Centre County released parts of the judges’ telephone numbers
and crafted a spreadsheet tracking cell phone usage between the judges and DA,
although the response did not provide the contents of the communications, nor the
cost of cell phone services.
The judges requested the trial court enter a preliminary injunction to enjoin
the release of the records, which was granted. The court found the records were
“relat[ed] to activities of the Judges [which] pertain to a judicial agency.” Id. at 92
(emphasis added). Regarding the separation of powers argument, the trial court held
Centre County lacked jurisdiction to release the cell phone records, enjoined Centre
County from responding to requests submitted under the RTKL for “judicial
records,” and directed Centre County to refer requests for “judicial records” to the
judicial agency. Id.
Centre County appealed to this Court, arguing the cell phone records were
public financial records, while the judges asserted the cell phone records reflected
UJS personnel communications, they were not records “of” Centre County, and their
disclosure would violate the separation of powers doctrine. This Court noted the
dispute

underscores the dilemma agencies face when a RTKL request seeks
records that document an activity of more than one agency. The [cell
phone r]ecords document the [c]ounty’s payment for services as well
as the [j]udges[’] use of services. The [j]udges do not dispute that
financial records of a judicial agency are public.[] Their concern lies
with maintaining control over records of a judicial agency when they
are in another branch’s possession.

Grine, 138 A.3d at 93. As to the RTKL, Rule 509, and financial records of a judicial
agency, we noted:

30
 At the outset, we emphasize that access to financial records of the [UJS]
is governed by Rule 509 . . . . The parties here do not ask us to
distinguish between the provisions of that Rule and the very similar
provisions of the RTKL which on their face refer to judicial agencies.
We decline to embark on that journey uninvited. Similarly, we decline
to explore on our own motion the interplay between the Rule and the
RTKL statute. Instead, we will confine our analysis to the arguments
raised by the parties, which refer almost exclusively to the RTKL.

Id. at 93 n.4. We held that, under the RTKL, “a record qualifies as ‘of’ an agency
when the record ‘documents a transaction or activity of the agency[,]’” and
“‘[d]ocuments’ means ‘proves, supports [or] evidences.’” Id. at 94 (emphasis added)
(quoting Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Admin. Servs. v. A Second Chance, Inc. (ASCI),
13 A.3d 1025, 1034-35 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (en banc) (fourth alteration in original).)
We explained:

In discerning whether records qualify as records “of” a particular
agency, we consider the subject[ ]matter of the records. Meguerian [v.
Off[.] of Att[’]y. Gen., 86 A.3d 924 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013);] see also Off[.]
of Att[’]y. Gen. v. Phila. Inquirer, 127 A.3d 57, 63 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015)
(“For emails to qualify as records [‘]of[’] an agency, we only look to
see if the subject[ ]matter of the records relate[s] to the agency’s
operations.”). The location of the record or an agency’s possession
does not guarantee that a record is accessible to the public; rather, the
character of the record controls. Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Baxter, 35
A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). A record does not need to be generated
by the agency receiving a RTKL request to qualify as “of” that agency.

Grine, 138 A.3d at 95. Although the cases relied upon by Centre County in Grine
indicated records of an agency’s cell phone services were financial records reflecting
the disbursement of agency funds, the records in the cited cases “did not reveal
activities of the judiciary,” as the records sought in Grine had. Id. at 96. Because
the records at issue in Grine reflected the activities of the judicial agency, the judges,

31
and the DA, they were not a record “solely of [the c]ounty.” Id. at 96 (emphasis
added).
As to the separation of powers doctrine, we reasoned:

The dual status of the records as documenting activities of the [c]ounty
and of the judicial agency is central to this dispute. The RTKL affords
different levels of access to any non-exempt records of a local agency,
such as [a c]ounty, but it allows access only to financial records of a
judicial agency.

Id. at 97 (bold emphasis added).17 We explained:

To preserve the separation of powers, a requester [i]s unable to access
records of activities of a judicial employee by seeking the records
through a county. [Lackawanna Cnty., 2 A.3d at 813.] Allowing
another agency to direct a judicial employee violated the separation of
powers because it interfered with the judiciary’s oversight and
supervision of judicial employees. The trial court applied the same
rationale here.

The trial court here reasoned that records relating to activities of the
[j]udges pertained to members of the [UJS]. Such activities are under
the exclusive oversight of our Supreme Court. Following Lackawanna
County [], the trial court concluded records documenting the [j]udges’
use of cell phone services were not accessible through [the c]ounty. In
so doing, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion.

[The c]ounty attempts to distinguish Lackawanna County [] because
that case involved the content of communications of a judicial
employee, and content is not at issue here. However, our holding that
records of a judicial employee are records of a judicial agency, and so
beyond [the] OOR’s jurisdiction, did not depend on the content of the

17
In Schneller v. Philadelphia District Attorney (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1313 C.D. 2016, filed
August 3, 2017), slip op. at 2-3 (emphasis added), “we reject[ed the r]equester’s premise that
‘judicial records’ are accessible under the RTKL. . . . Indeed, the RTKL contains no such term.
See Section 102 of the RTKL.” Moreover, the requester did not “explain the records evidence an
activity ‘of’ a judicial agency so as to have dual character as a local agency record and a judicial
agency record. Grine.” Id. (emphasis in original).
32
 records. Our rationale was based on the need for the judiciary to
retain supervisory control over its personnel.

Id. at 97-98 (emphasis added, footnotes omitted).
In sum, the Grine Court reasoned “the [j]udges [had] established a clear right
to relief to ensure the judiciary retains control over records showing the
activities of [UJS] personnel,” even if the records were simultaneously held by a
county. Id. at 100 (emphasis added). This Court ultimately affirmed the grant of
injunctive relief against Centre County, while noting Centre “County remain[ed]
free to disclose financial records of [the c]ounty that [were] not also records showing
activities of a judicial agency, and thus comply with the RTKL.” Id. at 101
(emphasis added).
In Stover, this Court reiterated the need to review the character and subject
matter of a requested record, rather than which office possessed the record, when it
was tasked with determining whether orders of conviction and sentencing, and a
commitment form, were records “of” a district attorney’s office (a local agency) or
“of” the court of common pleas (a judicial agency). 176 A.3d at 1028. This Court
held:

The fact that the [d]istrict [a]ttorney may possess – or readily obtain –
a copy of the sentencing order in no way transforms the record of a
judicial agency into a record of a local agency.

....

Moreover, if a court’s sentencing order is a record of a judicial agency,
then so must be a court’s order memorializing a defendant’s conviction
and/or judgment. In both instances, the character and subject matter
of the requested records evidence the duty and power of the court
while acting as a judicial agency, and the orders document activities
that are solely and uniquely vested in and committed to the judicial
branch of government.

33
 ....

Regarding the requested [c]ommitment [f]orm, our General Assembly
has directed the court of common pleas to create and issue these forms
as part of its judicial functions in sentencing a defendant to a
particular place of confinement. . . . Consequently, this requested
record, too, is one “of” a judicial agency.

Id. at 1029 (emphasis added). Thus, if the record evinces the duty and power of a
judicial agency as part of the agency’s functions and documents the activities of a
judicial agency, Stover, 176 A.3d at 1029, it is a record “of” the judicial agency.
Here, as stated in Grine, and consistent with Lackawanna County and Stover,
“we [must] evaluate whether a record documents an agency’s activity or
operations.” Grine, 138 A.3d at 95 (emphasis added). Prothonotary employees,
like the employee at issue in Lackawanna County, are paid by County; however, this
“does not affect [their] status as [] judicial employee[s].” 2 A.3d at 813. The records
at issue in Lackawanna County, the inappropriate emails the director had produced
or generated, were records of a judicial agency because they were produced or
generated by personnel of a judicial agency. Moreover, the records requested in
Lackawanna County implicated separation of powers concerns because those
records directly related to, and had an impact on, “the judiciary’s . . . ability to
supervise its own personnel without interference from another branch of
government” because those emails concerned the director’s suspension from a
judicial employee position. Id. at 814 (emphasis added). Ultimately, the decision
in Lackawanna County was most concerned with records that were judicial in nature
as they were the emails from a judicial employee and associated with the judicial
agency’s ability to supervise its own employee.
However, a record need not be generated by an agency or its personnel for it
to qualify as a record “of” the agency. Bagwell, 76 A.3d at 90. The records at issue
34
in Grine were not produced or generated by the judicial agency, but were nonetheless
records of that agency because they reflected the activities of a judicial agency’s
“employees,” there, judges. That they also reflected Centre County’s payment for
cell phone services for the judges did not remove the records from being “of” the
judicial agency. Grine, 138 A.3d at 97.
Here, whether the record at issue qualifies as “of” Prothonotary depends on
whether it “documents a transaction of” or activities of Prothonotary. Id. at 94.
Considering the subject matter of the requested record, as we must, id. at 95, it
contains the following regarding each Prothonotary employee: a department
number, first and last name, hiring date (redacted), termination date (redacted),
hourly pay, annual pay, and each employee’s title (R.R. at 176a). This information
was compiled by and is in the possession and control of County. At issue is solely
the hiring and termination dates of employees of Prothonotary, a judicial agency.
Court prothonotaries and their employees are personnel of the UJS, and, thus,
are considered employees of a judicial agency. A prothonotary’s work and activities
support the work and activities of the court and are considered functions of the court
system. Part of these activities is the appointment and removal of the prothonotary
office’s staff, 42 Pa.C.S. § 2735, and a prothonotary’s supervision of that staff.
Judicial Records Manager noted the employees of Prothonotary are under the joint
supervision of Prothonotary and County Commissioners. (R.R. at 52a.)
Accordingly, those records document Prothonotary’s activity of hiring or removing
Prothonotary employees, who perform duties in support of the judiciary, and,
therefore, “evidence [a] duty and power of” Prothonotary “while acting as a
judicial agency,” Stover, 176 A.3d at 1030 (emphasis added). Ultimately, the
records at issue are about judicial employees, and their hiring and subsequent

35
termination by Prothonotary, who is likewise judicial personnel, and are records
“document[ing] activities of judicial personnel.” Grine, 138 A.3d at 100; Stover,
176 A.3d at 1030. Because these records are records “of” Prothonotary, rather than
“of” County, common pleas did not err in concluding that the OOR lacked
jurisdiction over the requested records because they are records of a judicial agency.
Lackawanna County, 2 A.3d at 813-14.18

D. Whether common pleas erred in the January Decision by directing the
transfer of the Request to Judicial Records Manager and President Judge
erred in affirming the redaction of the length of service information
1. Parties’ Arguments
Requester argues common pleas erred in directing that the Request be referred
to Judicial Records Manager for review under Rule 509 in the January Decision
because the records are not of the judiciary. (Requester’s Br. at 24.) The redacted
length of service information is public, Requester maintains, and President Judge

18
The dissent “do[es] not dispute that Prothonotary is a ‘judicial agency.’” Scolforo v.
County of York, __ A.3d __, __ (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 359, 360 C.D. 2021, filed June 30, 2023), slip
op. at 3 (McCullough, J., dissenting). Rather, the dissent would hold that the requested records
are not “of” the judiciary because they “were not created by the judiciary in the course of its
functions, [] they do not evidence any ‘transaction’ or ‘activity’ of the judiciary,” “are generated,
housed, and modified as necessary by [] County, not Prothonotary acting as a judicial office[,]”
and the “employees’ salaries and benefits are paid entirely by [] County.” Scolforo, __ A.3d at __,
slip op. at 3-5 (McCullough, J., dissenting). For these reasons, the dissent concludes the requested
records are distinct from the records at issue in Lackawanna County and Grine and should not be
considered records “of” the judiciary. Id. Under our precedent, however, a record does not have
to be “created” by or in the possession of an agency for it to qualify as a record “of” that agency.
Grine, 138 A.3d at 95; Bagwell, 76 A.3d at 90. In asserting the length of service record of a
Prothonotary employee does not “evidence any ‘transaction’ or ‘activity’ of the judiciary,” or
Prothonotary acting as a “judicial office,” Scolforo, __ A.3d at __, slip op. at 4 (McCullough, J.,
dissenting), the dissent does not acknowledge that one such “activity” of a prothonotary under the
Judicial Code is to appoint and terminate the employees that perform the work that supports the
work and activities of the court and which are considered functions of the court system. 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 2735(a). Thus, these are not reasons to find that a record is not “of” Prothonotary, a judicial
agency.
36
erred in finding they are not financial records under Section 304 of the RTKL.
Requester argues that, under the Supreme Court’s decisions in Pennsylvania State
University v. State Employees’ Retirement Board, 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (Penn
State), and, more recently, in City of Harrisburg, 219 A.3d 602, the definition of
financial records should be broadly interpreted to include records that bear a close
connection to a financial record. Requester also asserts the Request should be
reviewed under Rule 509, if the responsive records are not disclosable under the
RTKL.19
County responds there was no error in President Judge’s finding Section
708(b)(6)(ii) inapplicable because that section does not apply to a request for
financial records from a judicial agency. It further asserts President Judge correctly
determined that the length of service information was not a financial record under
Sections 102 and 304 of the RTKL. (County’s Br. at 18.) County argues it cannot
be directed to release records it retains for the judiciary until after a request is
properly considered under Section 304 and Rule 509. (Id. at 19.)

2. Analysis
We begin with Requester’s claim that common pleas erred in having this
matter referred to Judicial Records Manager. We are not persuaded this argument
supports reversal. Having concluded the responsive records were “of” a judicial
agency over which the OOR has no jurisdiction, common pleas took steps to have
the Request considered by the person charged with reviewing requests for judicial
records, Judicial Records Manager, by having County refer the Request to Judicial
Records Manager for consideration. We discern no error in common pleas’ attempt

19
These last two arguments were made at oral argument.
37
to have the Request reviewed and resolved without requiring the filing of another
request.
We next turn to Requester’s assertion the responsive records are disclosable
under the RTKL and/or Rule 509. Because the responsive records are “of” a judicial
agency, they are only disclosable if they are financial records as both Section 304 of
the RTKL and Rule 509(a) limit disclosure to those types of records. The RTKL
provides that judicial agencies “shall provide financial records in accordance with
the [RTKL] or any rule . . . of court providing equal or greater access to the records.”
65 P.S. § 67.304(a). Section 304 invokes not only the terms of the RTKL, but also
any rule of court that provides equal or greater access to the financial records of
judicial agencies. One such court rule is Rule 509(a), which states: “Financial
records of the [UJS] are presumed to be open to any member of the public . . . .”
Pa.R.J.A. 509(a). Section 102 of the RTKL and Rule 509(a) define financial records
similarly. Compare 65 P.S. § 67.102, with Pa.R.J.A. 509(a).20 At issue is whether

20
The RTKL defines “financial record,” in relevant part, as follows:

(1) Any account, voucher or contract dealing with:

(i) the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency; or

(ii) an agency’s acquisition, use or disposal of services, supplies, materials,
equipment or property.

(2) The salary or other payments or expenses paid to an officer or employee of an
agency, including the name and title of the officer or employee.

65 P.S. § 67.102. Rule 509(a) defines “financial records”

as any account, contract, invoice or equivalent dealing with: 1) the receipt or
disbursement of funds appropriated to the system; or 2) acquisition, use or disposal
(Footnote continued on next page…)
38
the employees’ length of service, which were contained in the spreadsheet but were
redacted, must be disclosed as a financial record.
“Length of service” is not included on the face of the definitions of financial
records in either Section 102 of the RTKL or Rule 509(a). However, our Supreme
Court has consistently interpreted the phrase “any account, voucher or contract
dealing with . . . the disbursement of funds by an agency,” found in the RTKL’s
definition of financial record, 65 P.S. § 67.102, and the definition of public record
under Section 1 of the prior Right-to-Know Act21 (RTKA) broadly to “encompass[]
not merely accounts, vouchers and contracts but also records bearing a sufficiently
close connection to such ‘fiscally related’ categories, so long as they also ‘deal
with the receipt or disbursement of funds by an agency.’” City of Harrisburg,
219 A.3d at 612 (quoting LaValle v. Off. of Gen. Counsel, 769 A.2d 449, 456 (Pa.
2001); N. Hills News Rec. v. Town of McCandless, 722 A.2d 1037, 1039 (Pa. 1999))
(emphasis added); see also Penn State, 935 A.2d at 534 (“[T]he RTKA reaches
materials that are not facially accounts, vouchers, or contracts, but nonetheless bear
some close connection with one or more of these statutory categories.”). This
category of records “was meant to encompass ‘some range of records beyond those
which on their face constitute actual accounts, vouchers or contracts.’” City of
Harrisburg, 219 A.3d at 613 (quoting N. Hills News Rec., 722 A.2d at 1039). “[F]or
a record to deal with the disbursement of funds by an agency it need not directly
‘show’ a disbursement by the agency.” Id. at 615 (emphasis in original). Requiring

of services, supplies, materials, equipment or property secured through funds
appropriated to the system.

Pa.R.J.A. 509(a).
21
Act of June 21, 1975, P.L. 399, as amended, formerly 65 P.S. § 66.1, repealed by the Act
of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6.
39
a “close connection” between the record requested and one of the statutory
categories is consistent with the General Assembly’s intent that the RTKL and
earlier “RTKA [] be liberally construed ‘to fully implement the policy of
disclosure[.]’” Id. at 614 (quoting LaValle, 769 A.2d at 456).
The Supreme Court has applied these principles to conclude a spreadsheet
listing information about donors to a legal defense fund was a financial record under
the RTKL because it bore a close connection to an account as it “reflect[ed] a list
of monetary receipts . . . to the City [of Harrisburg]” which were deposited into the
legal defense fund’s bank account. City of Harrisburg, 219 A.3d at 616. It likewise
found documents submitted to the Department of Public Welfare (DPW)22
containing rates paid by private health plan contractors to dental subcontractors as
part of implementing a Medicaid program were financial records under the RTKL
because they “plainly ‘deal[t] with’ with DPW’s disbursement of billions of
dollars of public monies . . . as well as [DPW’s] acquisition of services to meet its
obligations under federal and state law.” Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Eiseman, 125
A.3d 19, 30 (Pa. 2015) (emphasis added). And, most relevant to this matter, the
Supreme Court concluded information about the salaries and service histories of
Penn State employees constituted public records of the State Employees Retirement
System under the RTKA. The Supreme Court reasoned the information was “used
to establish [the employees’] contractual rights [(to their defined benefits)], and is
detailed and evidenced in the form of records which would otherwise fit the
definition of ‘account, voucher or contract dealing with the receipt or
disbursement of funds by an agency.’” Penn State, 935 A.2d at 535 (emphasis
added). Although Penn State involved the RTKA, its rationale is applicable to the

22
DPW is now known as the Department of Human Services.
40
RTKL because the General Assembly used the same language in the definition of
financial record in the RTKL as it used in defining a public record under the RTKA,
and “[w]e presume . . . that the General Assembly intended this same language in
the RTKL . . . to have the same meaning we gave it under the RTKA.” City of
Harrisburg, 219 A.3d at 612.
While an employee’s length of service does not directly show the
disbursement of funds, this is not required for the record to be considered as dealing
with the disbursement of funds by an agency. Id. at 614. Similar to how the Penn
State employees’ length of service records dealt with the disbursement of public
monies in the nature of retirement benefits to which they had a contractual right, the
length of service of Prothonotary employees deals with the disbursement of public
monies in the nature of the compensation which they have a right to receive as
employees. The compensation for prothonotary employees is fixed by either the
prothonotary or by a county board with the prothonotary as a member. 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 2735(c). The connection between the length of service records and the “fiscally
related” categories of the definition of financial record is sufficiently close to include
them in the “‘range of records beyond those which on their face constitute actual
accounts, vouchers or contracts.’” City of Harrisburg, 219 A.3d. at 613 (quoting
N. Hills News Rec., 722 A.2d at 1039). Including length of service information in
the RTKL definition of financial record based upon its close connection to the
statutory classifications and its dealing with the disbursement of public monies is
consistent with the General Assembly’s intent that the RTKL is to be liberally
construed so as “‘to fully implement the policy of disclosure.’” Id. at 614 (quoting
LaValle, 769 A.2d at 456). Accordingly, we conclude the length of service

41
information of a judicial agency’s employee is a financial record disclosable under
Section 304 of the RTKL.
Requester also contends Section 708(b)(6)(ii) of the RTKL23 clearly
establishes length of service information is public and disclosable. President Judge
rejected this contention reasoning this provision did not apply to a judicial agency,
and County maintains this question must be resolved under Rule 509’s definition.
However, we need not reach these issues based on our conclusion that records of
Prothonotary’s employees’ length of service fall within the RTKL’s definition of
financial record as broadly interpreted by our Supreme Court. As they are financial
records as defined by the RTKL, they are disclosable pursuant to Section 304 of the
RTKL, and President Judge erred in affirming their redaction. Accordingly, the
March Decision upholding that redaction is reversed.24

III. CONCLUSION
Because we discern no error in common pleas’ determination that
Prothonotary is a judicial agency and the requested records are records of

23
This section states: “Nothing in this paragraph [(relating to the exemption of certain
personal identification information from disclosure)] shall preclude the release of the . . . length of
service of a public official or an agency employee.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6)(ii).
24
The dissent states there is no separation of powers issue here if the requested records are
considered “of” County because common pleas “has no supervisory authority over Prothonotary
employees other than as they are working in court and performing court functions” and Judicial
Records Manager had “no authority over Prothonotary or its employees.” Scolforo, __ A.3d at __,
slip op. at 6 (McCullough, J., dissenting). However, common pleas itself disagreed with Judicial
Records Manager’s view, relied upon by the dissent, finding “that the wage and salary records
requested are judicial records under the control and supervision of the judiciary[,]” and the
requested records were “of” the judicial agency, not County. (January Decision at 19 (emphasis
added), R.R. at 158a.) Because appeals from the denial of disclosure of such records, under either
the RTKL or Rule 509, are decided by the judiciary, not the OOR, the separation of powers
doctrine is not implicated.
42
Prothonotary, it did not err in affirming the OOR’s Final Determination in the
January Decision. However, President Judge erred in upholding Judicial Records
Manager’s partial denial and resulting redaction of the length of service information
because it bears a sufficiently close connection to the statutory categories and deals
with the disbursement of an agency’s funds to constitute a disclosable financial
record pursuant to City of Harrisburg. Accordingly, we affirm the January Decision,
but we reverse the March Decision.

__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge

Judge Fizzano Cannon and Judge Wallace did not participate in the decision in this
case.

43
 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Liz Evans Scolforo and :
The York Dispatch, :
Appellants :
:
v. : No. 359 C.D. 2021
:
The County of York :
:

Liz Evans Scolforo, :
:
Appellant :
:
v. : No. 360 C.D. 2021
:
The County of York :
:

ORDER

NOW, July 10, 2023, in accordance with the foregoing opinion, the January
25, 2021 Order of the Court of Common Pleas of York County is AFFIRMED, and
the March 17, 2021 Order of the President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas of
York County is REVERSED.

__________________________________________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Liz Evans Scolforo and :
The York Dispatch , :
Appellants :
v. : No. 359 C.D. 2021
:
The County of York :
:
:
Liz Evans Scolforo, :
Appellant :
v. : No. 360 C.D. 2021
:
The County of York : Argued: September 12, 2022

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

DISSENTING OPINION BY
JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: July 10, 2023

In resolving these consolidated Right-to-Know Law (RTKL)1 appeals,
the Majority concludes that the records at issue—name, salary, job title, and length-
of-service records of York County Prothonotary (Prothonotary) employees—are the
records “of” a judicial agency and, therefore, may not be disclosed to the public
without the approval of the judicial records manager of the Court of Common Pleas
of York County, Pennsylvania (common pleas).2 Although I agree with the Majority
that these records are disclosable as public records, I cannot agree with the
Majority’s characterization of these records as those “of” a judicial agency. Rather,

1
Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101-67.3104.

2
The judicial records manager of a judicial district is designated by the president judge of
that judicial district. See Pa. R.J.A. 509(c)(1). In York County, and as is common, the judicial
records manager is the district court administrator (DCA). (Reproduced Record (R.R.) 165a-67a.)
these records very plainly are financial records of York County (County), a local
agency, and therefore are disclosable under the RTKL. See Section 708(b)(6)(ii) of
the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6)(ii). The tangled procedural history below
highlights in bold relief the difficulty that local records officials have in applying
our precedents to RTKL requests that potentially involve both local and judicial
agencies. Because I believe that the Majority confuses the analytical framework
applicable to these kinds of records requests and unnecessarily complicates and
restricts public access to public records, I must respectfully dissent.
First, on a procedural note, Case No. 359 C.D. 2021 is an appeal from
the decision of common pleas affirming the Office of Open Records’ (OOR) Final
Determination. The OOR concluded that it did not have jurisdiction over the
requested records because the records were those “of” a judicial agency.
(Reproduced Record 12a.) The appeal to the OOR concerned a RTKL request
submitted to the County, which undisputedly is a local agency. Thus, the precise
question before the OOR was not so much whether it had jurisdiction to consider the
appeal, but, rather, whether it had any authority to order the production of the
requested records. We held as much in Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office v.
Stover, 176 A.3d 1024, 1026-27 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (because district attorney’s
office is a local agency under the RTKL, appeal from denial of RTKL request
directed to that office properly was before the OOR, which has “jurisdiction” over
RTKL appeals from local agencies; “the fact that the OOR has jurisdiction to decide
this controversy does not determine whether the OOR has the legal authority to grant
[the r]equester’s request, for the issues are separate and distinct”). I reiterate this
distinction here only to make procedurally clear the fact that the OOR has
“jurisdiction” over appeals from local agency RTKL determinations. The OOR may
thereafter determine that the records at issue are “of” a judicial agency and, therefore,
outside of its authority to either direct or preclude disclosure. This is a fine and
somewhat pedantic point, but an important one, nevertheless.
PAM-2
 Second, and more importantly, although I do not dispute that
Prothonotary is a “judicial agency” under the RTKL and our case law, I do not
believe that the requested records (personnel information regarding Prothonotary
employees) are records “of” a judicial agency. As the Majority acknowledges, the
fact that the requested records relate to employees of a judicial agency does not itself
convert them into records “of” a judicial agency. See Scolforo v. The County of York
___ A.3d ___ (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 359 & 360 C.D. 2021, filed July __, 2023), slip
op. at 24 (MO). Rather, whether these are records “of” a judicial agency is a question
determined by the subject matter and character of the records. They must
“document” (or prove, support, or evidence) a transaction or activity of the agency.
Stover, 176 A.3d at 1028 (citing and quoting Grine v. County of Centre, 138 A.3d
88, 94-95 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (en banc)). See also ___ A.3d at ___, MO at 26 (“In
making this determination, courts examine whether the record is produced by the
agency, reflects an activity or operation of the agency, or documents the transactions
of the agency.”).
I do not believe that these records qualify as records “of” a judicial
agency under the above standards. The personnel records at issue in these appeals
are generated, housed, and modified as necessary by the County, not Prothonotary
acting as a judicial office. These employees’ salaries and benefits are paid entirely
by the County and not by funds appropriated to the Unified Judicial System (UJS).
See Pa. R.J.A. 509 (defining “financial records” as those that relate to funds
“appropriated to the [UJS]”). The records were not created by the judiciary in the
course of its functions, and they do not evidence any “transaction” or “activity” of
the judiciary. They are, therefore, both categorically and practically distinct from
the records at issue in both Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County v.
Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010), and Grine.
In Lackawanna County, a RTKL request sought records of e-mails sent
to or from e-mail accounts used by the county’s domestic relations office director
PAM-3
(DRO director). Id. at 812. We concluded that the requested records were records
“of” a judicial agency because they were produced by the DRO director, who was
an administrative staff person of the UJS directly supervised by the court of common
pleas. Id. at 813. Thus, “his records [were] records of a judicial agency . . . ,” and
Lackawanna County’s payment of his salary, ownership of the subject e-mail
accounts, and possession of the requested records did not convert the requested e-
mails into county records. Id. We further noted that any attempt by the OOR to
direct production of the DRO director’s e-mails was a “blatant and unconstitutional”
separation of powers violation:
Among the judiciary’s powers is the ability to supervise
its own personnel without interference from another
branch of government. An inescapable corollary to this
power is that no administrative agency may exercise
control over the records generated by personnel of a
judicial agency.

Id. at 814 (citations omitted). For reasons that are obvious, that is not this case. The
requested Prothonotary employee records are generated by the County and
maintained by it for its own financial and employment-related purposes. Nothing in
the record indicates that Prothonotary or any of its employees produced these
documents in any fashion, let alone in the course of performing a judicial activity.
They simply do not evidence any transaction or activity of Prothonotary acting in its
function as a judicial agency. And, as stated above, I do not believe that the records’
mere “relation” to Prothonotary, whatever that might mean, is sufficient to convert
them into records of the judiciary.
Grine also is easily distinguishable for the same reasons. There, the
requester sought cellular telephone records of a common pleas judge, a magisterial
district judge, and a district attorney. Pertinent here, we concluded that the requested
telephone records of the common pleas judge reflected the activities of the judiciary
(i.e., the activities of a judicial officer—a judge), notwithstanding the fact that the
PAM-4
county paid the judge’s cellular telephone bills. On that basis, and to maintain
appropriate separation of powers and preserve the judiciary’s supervisory control
over its personnel, we concluded that the requested records were those of a judicial
agency and were not disclosable by the county. Grine, 138 A.3d at 95, 97-98. And,
although the issue is not now before us, the same analysis would apply to records
generated by county probation officers, who also are supervised by the courts of
common pleas and not by counties. See Lackawanna County, 2 A.3d at 813.
This, in my view, was the point of our conclusion in Stover that records
of a criminal defendant’s sentence and conviction were records of a judicial agency,
no matter where they were housed. We stated that, “in both instances, the character
and subject matter of the requested records evidence the duty and power of the court
while acting as a judicial agency, and the orders document activities that are
solely and uniquely vested in and committed to the judicial branch of
government.” Stover, 176 A.3d at 1029 (emphasis added). Under that standard,
Prothonotary employees’ county-maintained personnel records that, by themselves,
evidence no activity of Prothonotary while acting as a judicial agency, are not
records “of” a judicial agency.
Further, unlike the situations in Lackawanna County and Grine, there
is no separation of powers issue here. As common pleas noted, see ___ A.3d at ___,
MO at 3-4, it has no supervisory authority over Prothonotary employees other than
as they are working in court and performing court functions. Thus, the very real
practical danger with the Majority’s holding is that it potentially makes all, or almost
all, financial records related to Prothonotary and its employees the financial records
“of” a judicial agency. That means that any records related to Prothonotary’s
functioning or financial matters could not be released under the RTKL without the
approval of the district court administrator, who has no authority over Prothonotary
or its employees. This potentially would include budgeting, salaries, raises, bonuses,
and the like. I do not believe that is an appropriate result. To further illustrate and
PAM-5
press the point, contrast the employee records requested here with financial records
maintained and generated by Prothonotary that evidence the payment of costs, fees,
and judgments, costs associated with service of legal filings, and records of paid-
into-court funds such as a divorce master’s fee. Those records, clearly, are financial
records of the judiciary because they document a transaction or activity of a judicial
agency acting as a judicial agency.
Finally, as I noted above, the requested records at issue here likely
would not qualify as “financial records” under Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial
Administration 509, which defines “financial records” of the UJS as those that relate
to funds that are appropriated to the UJS. These Prothonotary personnel records
relate to county-funded employment. The Majority declines to address this issue,
see ___ A.3d at ___, MO at 42, but I think it is telling that our own Judicial
Administration rules do not consider these records to be “financial records” of the
UJS even though Prothonotary employees might be considered personnel of the UJS.
In sum, I would conclude that the requested records are disclosable
under the RTKL as financial records of the County, a local agency. Under section
708(b)(6)(ii) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6)(ii), length-of-service records
expressly are disclosable. This, to my mind and under our case law, is a cleaner
outcome disposing of both appeals in a fashion that is readily applicable in future
RTKL cases involving records that potentially “relate” to more than one kind of
agency.

________________________________
PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

PAM-6