The Rush Township supervisors have filed an appeal in Schuylkill County court from a ruling by the Office of Open Records, Harrisburg, which ruled under the Right To Know Law the request by Marion J. Lazur, of 582 Fairview Street, Rush Township, to view township bills paid to vendors for the months of January, February and March 2007 should be granted.

Lazur had originally requested to view these financial records and the township responded it would permit her to view the bills but it will first require redaction (blacked out) of vendor account numbers and that there would be a charge for copies.Lazur challenged the necessity of redaction for six of the requested invoices alleging they do not have account numbers and also claimed the other requested invoices are not necessary because the township could cover the account numbers with removable tape. The township responded asserting that it is not required to cover records with tape.The Right To Know Law is designed to promote access to official government information in order to prohibit secrets, scrutinize the actions of public officials and make public officials accountable for their actions.In its ruling Attorney Audrey Buglione, appeals officer with the Office of Open Records, ruled an appeals officer is required to review all information filed relating to the request and may hold a hearing or not hold a hearing is descretionary and non-appealable. The officer reported neither party requested a hearing.The officer ruled a township is a local agency subject to the Right to Know Law that is required to disclose public records. Records in possession, custody or control of a local Commonwealth agency are presumed public unless exempt under the Right To Know Law or other law or protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree. An agency bears the burden of proving the applicability of any cited exemptions.The officers conclusion was, "In this instant appeal the agency (Rush Township) denied access to the account numbers assigned to it by its vendors. There is no provision that makes this information exempt from public access, therefore, the Township improperly denied access to the account numbers as there is no evidence that any other information on the requested invoices is claimed exempt the invoices do not require redaction. The requester specifically sought access to view and not copies of, the invoices and the Township is required to provide the requested access during normal business hours at no charge for copies."Among the bills Lazur is asking to see are payments to Advance Auto Parts, Carmen Forke Jr., Entech Engineers, Nextel Partners, several law firms and newspapers, ATX Telecommunication, Smulligan Glass, Fegley Oil Company, E.M. Kutz Inc and Waste Management.Challenges ruleIn its appeal to court the township avers that the decision of the Office of Open Records is prejudicial, an abuse of discretion, contradictory to law and permits access to confidential financial information of the township.Also, that the decision allows Lazur the opportunity to take pictures of records, note the account numbers on paper or remember the numbers which could result in the use of the account being compromised.The township also claims the decision violates the provisions of the law in that the financial account information for the entire township is being permitted to be viewed and copied. That the vendor information for suppliers of the township are likewise being subjected to copying and disclosure in violation of the law.The township requests the court declare that the decision of the Office of Open Records is improper and contrary to law, overrule their decision and require that in order for Lazur to view the records she has requested that she prepay for the copies in order for the township to redact the senitive and confidential information.