PNA files amicus briefs in Dickinson Law School, Berks County Court cases

By Teri Henning 
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association

On Friday, July 23, the PNA filed an amicus curiae brief in the Sunshine Act lawsuit against Dickinson Law School’s board of governors. Both The (Carlisle) Sentinel and The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News challenged the board’s closed meetings, arguing that the board of governors was an agency subject to the Sunshine Act. 

In a 3-2 decision dated April 23, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled that the Board of Governors of the Dickinson Law School is not an “agency” subject to Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act and could continue to refuse public access to its meetings. 

Although the Sunshine Act has recently been amended to include Dickinson’s Board of Governors under the definition of “agency,” thus far, the amended act has not affected the lawsuit.

In April, the Commonwealth Court ruled that because the board of governors is not a “committee” of Penn State’s board of trustees, it is not an agency as that term is defined in the Act. In their briefs to the Supreme Court, the newspapers argued that the board is a “committee” of Penn State because, among other things, it takes official action (in having the final say over the location of the law school) and renders advice to Penn State’s board of trustees (on a number of academic and other matters). 

In its amicus brief, the PNA argued, for the same reasons, that the board of governors is a committee of Penn State’s board of trustees. PNA also argued that the board should fall within the definition of agency to the extent that it is the “governing body” of the law school. The board of governors’ brief is currently due next month, although there may be some issue in the meantime about whether the case has been made moot by the amendments to the Sunshine Act.

Criminal Records and Berks County Courts

PNA expects to file a brief with the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in a matter relating to the sealing of certain court records by the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. This brief will likely be filed in the next few weeks, as its deadline has been extended.

Early this year, the Berks County clerk of courts contacted the Reading Eagle and PNA about a Common Pleas court order requiring the clerk of courts to seal criminal records that had been “expunged” pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Criminal History Record Information Act. The clerk of courts objected to the order because, in his view, it violated state law. CHRIA makes it clear that court records are not subject to expungement under the Act.

On Feb. 25, PNA filed an amicus brief with the Berks County Court of Common Pleas. In the brief, PNA argued that the Criminal History Record Information Act (which governs expungements in Pennsylvania) does not authorize the expungement of court files. We also explained that although courts have the authority to seal court records under limited circumstances, this can only be accomplished after notice, a hearing, and the requisite findings by the court that the sealing of a record is necessary to protect a higher interest. We argued that the sealing of these court records, by means of a blanket order, is improper and inconsistent with constitutional and common law principles regarding access. 

The County Court upheld the expungement order, finding that it was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. In its opinion, the court emphasized that the order only applied to seal a limited group of matters – those relating to defendants who successfully completed the ARD program. The clerk of court has appealed the matter to the Commonwealth Court and asked PNA to file another brief challenging the expungement order. The PNA will make the same arguments in its brief to the Commonwealth Court.