OOR Affirms That School Construction Plans are Exempt From Disclosure Under RTKL Safety Exceptions

In Boyd v. Seneca Valley School District, AP 2026-1411, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records determined that the school district demonstrated that architectural plans and elevations related to a school construction project are exempt from disclosure under the safety exceptions set forth in Sections 708(b)(1)(ii) and 708(b)(3) of the RTKL, 65 P.S. §§ 67.708(b)(1)(ii), (b)(3).

BACKGROUND

In this case, the Requester submitted a request (“Request”) to the District pursuant to the Right-to-Know Law (“RTKL”), 65 P.S. §§ 67.101 et seq., seeking, among other things, PDF copies of the architectural plans and elevations relating to a school construction project. 

After consulting with its administration and security personnel, the District denied this portion of the Request, claiming that the disclosure of the responsive records was likely to threaten the personal security of an individual and public infrastructure, 65 P.S. §§ 67.708(b)(1), (3).  Requester appealed this denial to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”).

DISCUSSION

Section 708(b)(1)(ii) of the RTKL exempts from disclosure a record that “would be reasonably likely to result in a substantial and demonstrable risk of physical harm to or the personal security of an individual.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(1)(ii). To establish that this exemption applies, an agency must show: (1) a “reasonable likelihood” of (2) “substantial and demonstrable risk” to a person’s security.

Similarly, Section 708(b)(3) of the RTKL exempts “[a] record, the disclosure of which creates a reasonable likelihood of endangering the safety or the physical security of a building, public utility, infrastructure, facility or information storage system.” 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(3). In order for this exemption to apply, “the disclosure of” the records—rather than the records themselves—must create a reasonable likelihood of endangerment to the safety or physical security of certain structures or other entities, including infrastructure. Id.

Under both exceptions, to establish a reasonable likelihood, “an agency must offer more than speculation or conjecture to establish the security-related exceptions under the RTKL.”

In support of its denial, the District submitted an attestation from its Open Records Officer that provided a detailed factual basis for its conclusion that disclosure of the requested records would: create a reasonable likelihood of endangering: 1) the safety or the physical security of a building, public utility, resource, infrastructure, facility or information storage system; and 2) the personal safety of the individuals within the  facility.  Specifically, the attestation explained:

1. that the fire suppression systems, structural load paths, communication pathways are not readily visible to the public;
2. that disclosure of these systems and pathways could lead to interference with the lifesaving services that such systems and pathways provide to the District building occupants
3. that the plans reveal internal configurations that include restricted areas, access points and other operation details and areas that are concealed from public view.

Based on this detailed attestation, the OOR concluded that the District’s evidence established a link between the disclosure of architectural plans and real and apparent harm. It therefore denied the appeal.

PRACTICAL GUIDANCE

If a school district denies a request for records because it is concerned that the release of certain information, like construction plans, would be reasonably likely to result in a demonstrable risk of physical harm to the personal security of individuals and would endanger the physical security of a building or facility, it should be prepared to support this denial by describing, in detail, serious concerns for the safety of students, teachers and other individuals within the school district should the records be disclosed.

Importantly, the OOR will reject generalized statements of safety concerns. For example, in Werner v. School District of Pittsburgh, AP 2015-047, the school district submitted an affidavit containing conclusory statements relating to safety concerns about the release of building plans and did not provide sufficient facts to establish that the release of the requested records would endanger the safety and physical security of the school infrastructure.  Because of these failings, the OOR ordered the disclosure of the plans.

Accordingly, when faced with RTKL requests for similar records, a school district should work with its solicitor to ensure that it can prove that the risk associated with disclosure is substantial, demonstrable and real or apparent.

For questions regarding RTKL requests, security-related exemptions, or the disclosure of school construction and architectural records, please contact Christopher Voltz at (412) 594-5580 or cvoltz@tuckerlaw.com.