Griffith

Griffith

Pa. Office of Open Records cites worker’s privacy

Tired of ads? Subscribers enjoy a distraction-free reading experience.
Click here to subscribe today or Login.

Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records has concluded Luzerne County does not have to provide county Councilman Walter Griffith with the name of the seasonal election worker who discarded nine overseas military ballots in the November 2020 general election.

Griffith had submitted a Right-to-Know request seeking the name in July. The county denied the request arguing disclosure would threaten the temporary worker’s personal security. Griffith appealed to the state office.

All nine ballots were ultimately recovered from a dumpster and tallied. The seasonal worker had been employed for three days and was immediately terminated after prior election director Shelby Watchilla discovered and reported the matter.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office announced in January it had investigated along with the FBI and was not filing charges due to insufficient evidence of criminal intent by the temporary worker. The ballot discarding had made national news, largely because the U.S. Attorney’s Office publicly announced at least seven of the votes were for President Donald Trump, prompting Trump to reference the matter.

In its new determination, the Office of Open Records said the county argued the worker’s privacy interest outweighs any public benefit of disclosure and that the U.S. Attorney’s Office chose not to identify the individual.

Griffith maintained the name should be publicly accessible because the worker was paid with public funds. He also said he wanted to determine the amount of compensation and whether the person was still working as an employee, it said.

According to the state office’s decision:

Certain names may constitute personal information qualifying for protection under the constitutional right to privacy.

When personal information is not expressly exempt from disclosure under the state’s open records law, the office may release the personal information only when the public benefit outweighs the privacy interest.

It points to the county’s assertion that it “is clear there are threats that remain, that will undoubtedly result in the retaliation of the person who was responsible for discarding ballots.” The county also noted this is a “unique case” due to “circumstances that were particular to an election and the environment created during and most notably, thereafter.”

Under certain limited circumstances, the Commonwealth Court and Office of Open Records have found the names of government employees to be protected from disclosure.

“As a preliminary matter, the Office of Open Records takes notice of the heightened scrutiny of and tensions associated with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well as the violence, both verbal and physical, suffered by some election officials,” it said.

“As a result of the current atmosphere related to elections, as well as the currently confidential nature and context of the underlying investigation conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Office of Open Records recognizes the individual whose name is sought in the request has an enhanced privacy interest in his or her name,” it said.

This privacy interest is not “overcome” by Griffith’s arguments for disclosure, it said. The name is not needed to determine whether the individual remains employed by the county because the county has noted the worker was temporarily hired for the November 2020 national election, it said.

If Griffith wants to know how much the worker was paid, that information can be requested without the name, it said.

The worker’s payment with agency funds is not a factor “sufficient to overcome the significant privacy interests detailed by the county,” it said.

”Accordingly, under the limited circumstances of this case and after balancing the interests of the parties, the requested name is protected by the constitutional right to privacy,” the office said.

Griffith said Thursday he disagrees with the state determination but does not plan to further appeal to county court. He doesn’t believe the person who threw out the ballots would be in danger because a year has passed since the discovery and no evidence of criminal intent was detected. He said he would better understand the argument if he made the request in the days or weeks following the incident.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.