FOIA and RTKL regulations allow for agency provision of records which are in no way responsive to the requests being made. Said allowance enables agencies to circumvent proper process and protocol and negates the transparency that these laws were created to achieve.

1. 1
FINAL DETERMINATION
IN THE MATTER OF
GREGORY BULFARO,
Requester
v.
BUCKS COUNTY,
Respondent
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Docket No: AP 2023-0106
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 1, 2022, Gregory Bulfaro (“Requester”) submitted a request (“Request”) to
Bucks County (“County”) pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et
seq., seeking:
1. All records used to make the determination for the following HOA/Homeowner-
related fields as listed within the “Bucks County Preserved Properties” map at
https://bucksgis.maps.arcgis.com (Addendums 1 through 4):
Parcel 39-008-366
-HOA Community: Wyckford Commons
-Homeowners: Wyckford Commons Community [Association]
Parcel 33-009-043
-HOA Community: Wyckford Commons/Wyckford Mews
-Homeowners: Wyckford Mews Condo [Association]
Parcel 33-009-043-001
-HOA Community: Wyckford Commons/Wyckford Mews
-Homeowners: Wyckford Mews Condo Association

2. 2
Parcel 33-009-041-039
-HOA Community: Wyckford Commons/Meadowood Estates
-Homeowners: Meadowood Estates Community [Association]
2. All records confirming the existence of the “Wyckford Commons Community
[Association]”entity given that[,] among numerous other things[,] no such entity is
known to exist and the establishment thereof is prohibited in the historic chain of
title for said development.
3. All records that identify the “Ridge Group[,] Inc.” entity listed as owner of the
39-008-366 parcel given that[,] among numerous other things[,] the alleged
conveyance of this tract to the developer (“Ridge Group[,] Inc., a PA Corp.”)
bypasses the 39-008-366 parcel, thereby invalidating the developer’s ownership
and creating a distinction between the former and the latter entities.
4. All records that identify the relationship between Wyckford Commons and the
33-009-041-039 parcel.
5. All records supporting the notation on the 2/75 subdivision and land review
application to the Bucks County Planning Commission for Wyckford Commons
(Selsie Village) stating that the 39008366 parcel was “swapped to U.S. Gauge for
other parcels” (Addendum 5).
6. All records supporting the Bucks County Planning Commission’s 8/85 final
approval for the aforesaid subdivision to be constructed on TMPs 33-9-41, 33-9-
42, and 33-9-43, eliminating the 39-8-366 parcel (Addendum 6).
7. All records supporting the aforesaid subdivision being constructed on TMP’s
39-8-366, 33-9-042, and 33-9-043, disregarding the Bucks county Planning
Commission’s approval as noted in item #6.
On January 9, 2023, following a thirty-day extension during which to respond, 65 P.S. §
67.902(b), the County granted the Request and provided responsive records, redacting personal
identification information pursuant to 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(6)(i)(A).
On January 17, 2023, the Requester appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”),
challenging the denial and stating grounds for disclosure.1
Specifically, the Requester appealed
1
The Requester granted the OOR a 30-day extension to issue a final determination. See 65 P.S. § 67.1101(b)(1)
(“Unless the requester agrees otherwise, the appeals officer shall make a final determination which shall be mailed to
the requester and the agency within 30 days of receipt of the appeal filed under subsection (a).”).

3. 3
the redaction on page 17 of the records and the lack of explanation as to how the records provided
correlate to each portion of the Request. The OOR invited both parties to supplement the record
and directed the County to notify any third parties of their ability to participate in this appeal. 65
P.S. § 67.1101(c).
On February 2, 2023, the County submitted an attestation authored by Ashley Dayoub, the
County’s Agency Open Records Officer (“AORO”), made subject to the penalties of unsworn
falsification to authorities, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904. The County claims that all responsive records were
provided and that the redactions made were exempt personal information pursuant to §
67.708(b)(6)(i)(A). On March 16, 2023, the County submitted an additional attestation in response
to the OOR’s request for additional evidence, authored by the AORO. Said attestation was also
made subject to the penalties of unsworn falsification to authorities, 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The County is a local agency subject to the RTKL. 65 P.S. § 67.302. Records in the
possession of a local agency are presumed to be public, unless exempt under the RTKL or other
law or protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree. See 65 P.S. § 67.305. As an agency
subject to the RTKL, the County is required to demonstrate, “by a preponderance of the evidence,”
that records are exempt from public access. 65 P.S. § 67.708(a)(1). Preponderance of the evidence
has been defined as “such proof as leads the fact-finder … to find that the existence of a contested
fact is more probable than its nonexistence.” Pa. State Troopers Ass’n v. Scolforo, 18 A.3d 435,
439 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (quoting Pa. Dep’t of Transp. v. Agric. Lands Condemnation
Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821, 827 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010)).

4. 4
1. The County does not need to identify which records are responsive to each
portion of the Request
The Requester asserts that the County’s response was nonresponsive because it did not
correlate the responsive records with a particular Item of the Request. The RTKL clearly sets forth
a procedure for how an agency is to handle a request. A response and notice of extension are the
two appropriate agency actions when facing a request under the RTKL. First, Section 901 of the
RTKL states that “[u]pon receipt of a written request for access to a record, an agency shall make
a good faith effort to determine if the record requested is a public record...and whether the agency
has possession, custody or control of the identified record, and to respond as promptly as
possible...” 65 P.S. § 67.901. Second, Section 902 of the RTKL provides that an agency may
invoke an extension of time to respond to a RTKL request when certain factors are present. 65
P.S. § 67.902(b).
Here, as permitted under the RTKL, the County invoked a thirty-day extension to respond
to the Request. When responding to the Request, the County partially granted the Request
providing redacted records. Because the RTKL does not require an agency to organize the records
in any manner when responding to the Request, the County properly provided access to those
records.
2. The agency did not prove that the applicant had a reasonable expectation
of privacy
On page 17 of the records provided to the Requester that were supplied with the appeal, it
is clear that an applicant name was redacted, but it was not clear whether that was the name of a
private individual or a business entity. Upon request from the OOR, the County indicated that
information redacted on page 17 was the name of an individual and all names of business were
disclosed. Supplemental Dayoub Attestation ¶¶ 4a-4d. In Pa. State Educ. Ass’n v.

5. 5
Commonwealth, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that individuals possess a right to privacy
in certain types of personal information, including their home addresses. 148 A.3d 142 (Pa. 2016).
When a request for records implicates personal information not expressly exempt from disclosure
under the RTKL, the OOR must balance the individual’s interest in informational privacy with the
public’s interest in disclosure and may release the personal information only when the public
benefit outweighs the privacy interest. Id.; see also Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees’ Retirement
Bd., 935 A.2d 530 (Pa. 2007) (employing a balancing test with respect to home addresses sought
under the former Right-to-Know Act).
Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not expressly define the types of “personal
information” subject to the balancing test, the Court recognized that certain types of information,
including home addresses, by their very nature, implicate privacy concerns and require balancing.
Pa. State Educ. Ass’n, 148 A.3d at 156-57; see also Pa State Univ., 935 A.2d at 533 (finding home
addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers to be personal information subject to
the balancing test); Sapp Roofing Co. v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Assoc., 713 A.2d 627,
630 (Pa. 1998) (plurality) (finding names, addresses, social security numbers, and telephone
numbers of private citizens to be personal information subject to the balancing test). In this case,
the name of an applicant constitutes personal information, and the OOR must determine whether
the constitutional right to privacy protects the information from disclosure.
In Butler Area School District v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform, the Commonwealth
Court held:
...[C]ertain factors are constant when evaluating a privacy interest in information.
One is an individual’s reasonable expectation that the information is of a personal
nature.... [A] factor is how the agency obtained the information: when an individual
voluntarily submits information, it may be disclosed...; whereas, information
obtained by an agency premised on statutory confidentiality is protected... Also, the

6. 6
context holds additional significance, as does where the information is an essential
component of a public record.
172 A.3d 1173, 1184 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017). To discern whether a party may have a privacy
interest in the release of his or her name, the OOR assesses whether the information is traditionally
public, whether an individual has a cognizable interest in the status of the records, and whether the
record is personal, such that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Id. at 1173.
While the Requester does not articulate a public interest in the disclosure of the name of
the applicant, the names of private citizens are often considered private, and the OOR must
consider the manner in which the County obtained the information. See Chester Hous. Auth. v.
Polaha, 173 A.3d 1240, 1252 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017) (“[W]e hold that the constitutional privacy
protection applies when home addresses are requested, regardless of whether names or the
resident’s identity are attached.”); Sapp Roofing Co., 713 A.2d at 630 (finding the names of a
school district’s private contractors to be protected by the constitutional right to privacy where the
disclosure of the names was not relevant to the stated public interest); Hartman v. Pa. Dep’t of
Conserv. & Nat. Res., 892 A.2d 897, 906-07 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006) (finding the names and home
addresses of snowmobile registrants to be protected by the constitutional right to privacy); but see
Pa. State Univ. v. State Employees’ Retirement Bd., 935 A.2d at 539 (finding the names and salary
information of certain employees of a state-related university to be publicly accessible because the
information was directly related to the public’s interest in governmental transparency).
Here, the County obtained the information, i.e., the name of the applicant, because the
applicant submitted a major subdivision proposal for 20.4 acres. This information was submitted
voluntarily to a local agency. The record itself is a Memorandum from the County Planning
Commission to the Perkasie Borough Planning Commission, dated October 18, 1988, and is a
public record. The record contains items for the Borough to address upon review of the subdivision

7. 7
proposal. There would appear to be no reasonable expectation of individual privacy in such a
record and the County has submitted no evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, the record does
not support a finding that the applicant has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the
name on the responsive record. Thus, the applicant name listed on page 17 must be disclosed.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is granted a part and denied in part, and, within
thirty days, the County is required to provide an unredacted copy of page 17 of the record. This
Final Determination is binding on all parties. Within thirty days of the mailing date of this Final
Determination, any party may appeal to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. 65 P.S. §
67.1302(a). All parties must be served with notice of the appeal. The OOR also shall be served
notice and have an opportunity to respond as per Section 1303 of the RTKL; however, as the quasi-
judicial tribunal adjudicating this matter, the OOR is not a proper party to any appeal and should
not be named as a party.2
65 P.S. § 67.1303. This Final Determination shall be placed on the
OOR website at: http://openrecords.pa.gov.
FINAL DETERMINATION ISSUED AND MAILED: March 21, 2023
/s/ Bandy L. Jarosz
_________________________
BANDY L. JAROSZ, ESQ.
APPEALS OFFICER
Sent to: Gregory Bulfaro (via email only)
Ashley Dayoub (via email only)
2
Padgett v. Pa. State Police, 73 A.3d 644, 648 n.5 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013).