In agency response, providing for vexatious requesters.
SB 790 would amend Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law to create a formal process for agencies to seek relief from requesters alleged to be “vexatious requesters.” Under the bill, an agency could petition the Office of Open Records for a finding that a requester has submitted requests solely to harass, annoy, frustrate, or burden the agency. The petition must be supported by clear and convincing evidence and may rely on factors such as the number and scope of requests, repetitive filings, burdensome communications, and evidence of intent to harass. The bill also allows an agency to request a temporary stay of new or pending requests while the petition is being reviewed, subject to specific findings by the Office of Open Records.
The measure establishes a detailed administrative process for notice, preliminary response, briefing, possible hearing, mediation, and final determination by the Office of Open Records. If relief is granted, the office may limit the agency’s obligation to respond to future requests from the vexatious requester for up to one year, and any relief must be narrowly tailored and use the least restrictive means necessary. Final determinations must be posted publicly, and most decisions may be appealed to Commonwealth Court. The bill takes effect 120 days after enactment and would add a new section to the Right-to-Know Law governing agency responses to records requests.
The bill’s impact would be to give agencies a new statutory tool to manage abusive or bad-faith open-records activity while preserving access for ordinary requesters. It would affect the Office of Open Records, Commonwealth agencies, and requesters under the Right-to-Know Law by creating a formal adjudicatory mechanism and potential limits on future requests for those found to be vexatious. The bill also includes explicit carve-outs for certain requesters, including parents or guardians seeking records related to a school entity’s curriculum or policies, and candidates or political-party designees seeking voter registration or election-administration records.
The general sentiment reflected in the committee vote appears supportive, as the Senate State Government Committee reported the bill as committed by a 9-2 vote. That suggests majority agreement that agencies need a remedy for abusive request patterns. At the same time, the bill’s structure shows an effort to balance that concern with due process and access protections, including a high evidentiary standard, content-neutral review, appeal rights, and narrow tailoring of any restrictions.
The main point of contention is likely the tension between preventing harassment and preserving broad public access to government records. Critics could view the bill as a potential chill on legitimate open-records use, especially because agencies initiate the process and can seek a stay before final resolution. Supporters are likely to emphasize that the bill targets only requests made solely for a vexatious purpose and excludes certain politically and educationally sensitive requesters from the petition process. The lack of committee transcript detail limits insight into specific arguments, but the vote suggests the issue was debated rather than unanimous.
SB 790 would amend the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law by adding a new Section 906 governing “vexatious requesters.” It would authorize agencies to petition the Office of Open Records for relief, establish procedures for notice, response, hearings, mediation, stays, and appeals, and allow limited relief restricting future request obligations for up to one year. The bill would directly affect agencies, the Office of Open Records, and requesters whose conduct is alleged to be abusive, while preserving exceptions for certain school-related and election-related requesters.
The available voting history indicates generally favorable sentiment toward the bill in committee, with the Senate State Government Committee reporting it as committed by a 9-2 vote. That suggests a majority saw the proposal as a needed response to burdensome or bad-faith records requests. The bill’s detailed procedural safeguards also suggest an attempt to address concerns about overreach and protect legitimate access rights.
The central controversy is whether the bill appropriately balances agency protection against harassment with the public’s right to access government records. Supporters likely favor giving agencies a remedy against repetitive, burdensome, or harassing requesters, while opponents may worry the standard could be used to discourage legitimate open-records requests or political scrutiny. The bill responds to those concerns by requiring clear and convincing evidence, limiting relief to narrowly tailored measures, allowing appeals, and exempting certain requesters such as parents/guardians seeking school-related records and candidates or party designees seeking election-related records.