HOLLIDAYSBURG — A regional economic development agency composed primarily of county commissioners is exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law, according to a senior county judge who concluded that the agency’s purpose and functions aren’t governmental.

Senior Judge Thomas S. Ling of Bedford County, in addressing a Blair County civil court dispute, concluded that the Southern Alleghenies Planning & Development Commission doesn’t have to comply with the state’s law governing release of public records.

Ling’s finding reverses a Feb. 8, 2022, ruling by the state Office of Open Records, which ordered release of records associated with one broadband internet project to the Hollidaysburg Community Watchdog organization.

The Watchdog, which had asked for records associated with several proposed broadband internet projects, on Wednesday responded to Ling’s ruling by filing a notice of appeal with the state’s Commonwealth Court.

“It’s a terrible assault on the public’s interest,” Watchdog President Richard Latker said. “It means tens of thousands of (federal and state grant) dollars can be moved around without public scrutiny.”

SAPDC attorney George Gvozdich Jr. of Ebensburg didn’t return a call from the Mirror seeking comment.

In court records and in records filed with the state Open Records Office, SAPDC maintains that commissioners in each of the six counties making up the regional commission — Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Somerset, Huntington and Fulton — are responsible for awarding contracts and identifying money to pursue broadband development projects.

Before getting to that point, however, Alleghenies Broadband Inc. — an entity created by SAPDC to focus on broadband expansion pursuits — has solicited and evaluated project proposals.

When evaluating the arrangement, the state Open Records Office deemed ABI to be an “alter ego” of SAPDC — meaning it lacked its own identity and was likely created as a legal shield for the public agency. While the state office ordered release records for a broadband project under development, it said that additional records could be withheld because they involved proposed projects that had yet to be developed.

All three parties — SAPDC, ABI Inc. and the Hollidaysburg Watchdog — found fault with portions of the ruling by the state Open Records Office and filed appeals with the Blair County court.

After Blair County President Judge Elizabeth Doyle signed an order recusing Blair County’s judges from hearing the appeal, the case landed in front of Ling, a retired Bedford County judge.

Ling, whose recent ruling named six issues that surfaced in the appeal, addressed one issue and said his conclusion meant the others didn’t need to be addressed. The judge’s ruling provided no commentary on whether ABI Inc. is an “alter ego” of SAPDC and how that conclusion affects the availability of each entity’s records under the Right-to-Know Law.

“Ling did the easiest thing he possibly could,” Latker said. “By saying Southern Alleghenies is not a public agency, he didn’t have to address the other issues. But his conclusion is absurd. Southern Alleghenies is and always has been considered a public agency.”

Ling’s ruling does spell out that the Right-to-Know Law defines a public agency as “any local, intergovernmental, regional or municipal agency, authority council, board, commission or similar entity.”

But the judge found SAPDC to be excluded because it was formed in 1967 as a private nonprofit corporation to “enhance economic development in the Southern Alleghenies region and improve the lives of residents in the Southern Alleghenies region.”

While SAPDC has a long history of working with local governing bodies and on behalf of local governing bodies, Ling made a distinction between governmental interest and governmental functions.

“While expanding broadband is a laudable purpose,” Ling wrote, “this court can lend no authority that such expansion is a substantial facet of government activity.”

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association of Harrisburg, said Ling’s ruling is disappointing because of its harm to public interest.

“This decision essentially says that the residents have no legal means to access and understand SAPDC’s decision or hold them accountable, and that’s not in the public interest,” Melewsky said. “Residents impacted by this decision will have to explore other, less informative avenues for access under the law.”

While SAPDC currently posts many public documents on its website and it identifies a designated Right-to-Know officer, Ling’s ruling makes such practices subject to the agency’s discretion.

Melewsky said an appeal of Ling’s ruling to Commonwealth Court will provide an opportunity for a review of the ruling, along other facts in the case, including SAPDC’s role in the community, its function, funding and makeup of its board.

“Those factors weigh in favor of Right-to-Know law application,” she said. “But obviously, there’s no way to predict the appellate court’s decision.”

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