Background
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL), Act of February 14, 2008, P.L. 6, 65 P.S. §§ 67.101–67.3104, gives the public broad access to government records but structures the appeal of denials differently depending on which governmental entity denied access. For most Commonwealth agencies and local agencies, a requestor who is denied access may appeal to the Office of Open Records (OOR). But the RTKL carves out a separate path for requests directed to certain statewide officials: the Attorney General, the State Treasurer, and the Auditor General each designate their own appeals officer to hear RTKL appeals, and those appeals do not go through the OOR. 65 P.S. § 67.503(d)(1).
Allen L. Wilkins, Sr. (who litigates under the name Glue Wilkins), a pro se litigant, submitted a RTKL request in December 2024 to the Office of Attorney General’s Office of Open Records seeking documents confirming the processing of a Notice of Appeal in a case styled Glue Wilkins v. David J. Close. The request did not provide a docket number and referenced the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA) as a basis for the request, without explaining how CHRIA entitled him to the records. The OAG provided no response, which constituted a deemed denial under Section 901 of the RTKL. Rather than appealing to the OAG’s designated appeals officer, Wilkins filed his appeal with the OOR. On January 23, 2025, the OOR dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Wilkins timely appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Commonwealth Court affirmed in a per curiam opinion. The court reviewed the OOR’s statutory jurisdiction as a matter of law and applied plenary review. The analysis was straightforward: Section 503(d)(1) of the RTKL expressly provides that the Attorney General “shall designate an appeals officer to hear appeals under Chapter 11,” the chapter that governs the appeal process. That provision operates the same way as Section 503(b), which grants judicial agencies the authority to designate their own appeals officers and thereby deprives the OOR of jurisdiction over judicial agency appeals. Citing Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office v. Stover, 176 A.3d 1024 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) and Burda v. Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board, 175 A.3d 1138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017), the court confirmed that the OOR cannot hear appeals from OAG denials because the statute creates an independent appeal channel for those requests.
The court noted that Wilkins offered no counterargument on the jurisdictional question. To the extent his brief was discernible, it addressed the legality of his underlying criminal sentence rather than the RTKL appeal. The court further observed that PCRA—not the RTKL—provides the sole vehicle for collateral review of a criminal conviction.
Key Takeaways
- The Office of Open Records has no jurisdiction to hear RTKL appeals from requestors who were denied records by the Office of Attorney General; under Section 503(d)(1) of the RTKL (65 P.S. § 67.503(d)(1)), the OAG designates its own appeals officer for that purpose.
- The same carve-out applies to the State Treasurer and the Auditor General; requestors denied records by those offices must appeal to the respective entity’s designated appeals officer, not the OOR.
- An OAG non-response within five business days constitutes a deemed denial under Section 901 of the RTKL; the proper next step is an appeal to the OAG’s designated appeals officer, not the OOR.
- Using the RTKL to obtain documents related to a criminal sentence is unavailing; the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 9541–46, provides the exclusive mechanism for collateral review of a criminal conviction.
Why It Matters
This published decision reinforces a sometimes-overlooked feature of Pennsylvania’s RTKL architecture. Practitioners and pro se requestors who submit RTKL requests to the OAG, the State Treasurer, or the Auditor General and receive a denial (or a deemed denial from non-response) must take their appeal to the designated appeals officer within the requesting agency—not to the OOR, which handles the vast majority of Commonwealth-agency RTKL appeals. Filing in the wrong forum forfeits the appeal, as the OOR will properly dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The practical significance is most acute for litigants who routinely use the RTKL to obtain records from statewide law-enforcement or financial agencies. A request for prosecutorial records from the OAG, for example, does not follow the usual OOR appeal path. Requestors should identify at the outset whether their target agency is one of the three statewide officials listed in Section 503(d)(1) and route any appeal accordingly. This decision, being a published opinion of the Commonwealth Court, constitutes binding precedent on lower tribunals and the OOR itself.