When Emails and Text Messages Become Public Records Under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law
Phillip A. Michael
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law defines “record” broadly, and the Office of Open Records explains that records can include emails, text messages, metadata, and information stored electronically. For municipalities and public officials, that means the substance of a communication often matters more than the format in which it was sent.
That does not mean every text message or email involving a public official is automatically a public record. The better question is whether the communication was created, received, or retained in connection with the transaction, business, or activity of an agency. The Right-to-Know analysis focuses on the content and context of the communication, not merely whether it was sent from a phone, a personal account, or a computer.
Recent Pennsylvania case law reinforces that point. In one Commonwealth Court case, the requested records specifically included emails and text messages between school district board members and third parties. In another, the Commonwealth Court held that the analytical framework developed in Penncrest School District v. Cagle must be applied when determining whether a borough mayor’s Facebook activity qualifies as an agency record, with particular attention to whether the official was acting in an official capacity and whether the posts related to agency business.
As a practical matter, municipalities should not assume that informal or off-platform communications are exempt simply because they are conversational in tone. When agency business is discussed through texts, email chains, or social media activity, those communications may later become the subject of a Right-to-Know request. That practical reality makes internal policies, training, and retention practices increasingly important. This is a practical implication drawn from the OOR’s broad definition of “record” and the Commonwealth Court’s emphasis on official-capacity use.
Municipal leaders should also keep in mind that Right-to-Know issues often overlap with Sunshine Act concerns, public-record retention questions, and internal governance practices. A casual message sent in the wrong context can create avoidable complications later. Clear communication protocols and a working understanding of when an official is acting in an agency capacity can go a long way toward reducing that risk. This paragraph reflects a practical inference from the authorities above.
For additional information about the Right-to-Know Law, municipal recordkeeping, or public-sector governance issues, please contact an attorney in Appel Yost’s Municipal Law group.
The information provided on this blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
To learn more, please read our Legal Disclaimer.