Judge hears records dispute

Development organizations appeal decision on broadband proposal

HOLLIDAYSBURG -- Attorneys for two local agencies are challenging a conclusion the state Office of Open Records reached earlier this year when addressing a public records request by the Hollidaysburg Watchdog organization.

Ebensburg attorney George Gvozdich Jr. maintains the open records office got it wrong when it concluded that Alleghenies Broadband Inc. is an "alter ego" of the Southern Alleghenies Planning & Development Commission by reviewing a non-comparable court ruling.

"They relied on a case that didn't fit the facts," Gvozdick said Wednesday in Blair County Court where Senior Judge Thomas Ling of Bedford County began to examine the dispute.

Comparable cases are going to be minimal, Hollidaysburg Watchdog President Richard Latker said after the hearing, because this dispute developed from a novel approach.

In November 2021, the Watchdog organization sought what it believed to be public records of project proposals for plans to expand broadband internet services.

The SAP&DC -- a regional economic development organization serving Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Huntingdon, Fulton and Somerset counties -- created ABI as a private nonprofit organization to pursue the expansion and grant dollars to pay for it.

When the Watchdog didn't get the records it wanted, it turned to the state Office of Open Records for assistance. The office, in a February ruling, deemed the SAP&DC to be a public agency, deemed ABI to be an alter ego -- meaning it lacked its own identify and was likely created as a legal shield -- and directed the release of documents associated with the single broadband internet project that was under construction in Bedford County and authorized by Bedford County commissioners.

Ling said that before delving further into the appellate issues, he would first consider Latker's request for submitting additional documents in support of the conclusion that ABI is an "alter ego" of SAP&DC. Latker proposed that additional documents from those organizations -- such as audits, tax forms, salary schedules -- would provide more information for the judge to consider.

Gvozdich and ABI attorneys Todd Stewart and Melissa Chapaska objected and told Ling his appellate review must be based on existing records. Chapaska referenced "a 300-page record" on file with the Office of Open Records that would be available for the judge to review.

By law, all rulings issued by the state Office of Open Records can be appealed to a county court.

In this case, SAP&DC and ABI Inc. weren't alone in filing the appeal.

The Watchdog organization also appealed, pointing out that while the Office of Open Records directed the SAP&DC to provide records related to the one broadband project, the records related to five other proposed broadband projects should be available too because they qualify as public records.

"Proposals that are not awarded a contract are not indefinitely exempt (as public records)," the Watchdog organization wrote in its appeal for Ling to consider. "An agency cannot be perpetually entitled to restrict access to records simply by claiming, indefinitely, that further action might be coming."

Ling offered no time frame as to when he will file a ruling.

Mirror Staff Writer Kay Stephens is at 814-946-7456.