HOLLIDAYSBURG — A regional economic development agency directed by a board that includes 12 county commissioners is subject to the state’s Right-to-Know Law, a senior judge concluded in a recent ruling filed in Blair County.

The decision by Senior Judge William P. Mahon of Chester County — spelling out why Southern Alleghenies Planning and Development Commission (SAPDC) is a local agency subject to state law governing public records — is a big win for the Hollidaysburg Community Watchdog organization and for every citizen who believes in open and transparent government, Watchdog attorney Dan Kiss said Friday.

Based on Mahon’s ruling, SAPDC and/or Alleghenies Broadband Inc., the unit SAPDC created to pursue broadband expansion projects, has 30 days to provide the Watchdog organization with responses to an advertisement asking for broadband development proposals by July 7, 2021.

A few months after the July 7, 2021, deadline, the Watchdog submitted a public records request seeking the submitted proposals that could be afforded or partly afforded with federal and state tax dollars allocated for broadband expansion projects. But SAPDC claimed that ABI Inc. held those records and wasn’t subject to the Right-to-Know Law.

That stance prompted an appeal to the state Office of Open Records and launched a dispute which moved into Blair County court and went to Commonwealth Court, which last year remanded the case back to county court for further review, landing it in front of Mahon.

Even though the requested public records are four years old, Kiss said Mahon’s ruling clears the way for access to information about the regional broadband project proposals that were or weren’t pursued and paid for with federal and state tax dollars.

Hollidaysburg Watchdog leader Richard Latker said Mahon’s ruling gives the public “a reasonable chance” to access information and to determine if the significant amounts of tax dollars are being spent appropriately.

“We didn’t just start picking on Southern Alleghenies,” Latker said of the reason the organization filed its initial request for SAPDC’s public records. “We had complaints about their leadership … which had gone out and set up ABI as a business entity and authorized it to hand out government money through a non-transparent flow of taxpayer dollars.”

SAPDC and ABI work with counties

Leaders with SAPDC and ABI Inc. have previously told the Mirror and argued in court that ABI works in partnership with commissioners in the six-county region — Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Fulton, Huntingdon and Somerset — who remain responsible for authorizing and awarding contracts for broadband expansion projects. But commissioners voting on those contracts have relied on ABI Inc. for evaluations, recommendations and project management.

Kiss maintains that since Mahon concluded that SAPDC is a local agency subject to the Right-to-Know Law and since Commonwealth Court’s June 2024 ruling concluded that ABI is SAPDC’s alter ego, those arguments don’t matter.

“Public records that belong to ABI also belong to Southern Alleghenies and based on Judge Mahon’s ruling, they’re subject to the Right-to-Know Law,” Kiss said.

He also said Mahon’s ruling could be cited in attempts to secure public records from other agencies.

“This is a local precedent that can now be used by individuals who want to go to these governmental or governmental-related entities and say they want to see their public records,” Kiss said. “And realistically, they should be able to do that in the interest of good government.”

SAPDC attorney George Gvozdich of Ebensburg said Friday that he didn’t yet know if his organization or ABI will follow Mahon’s directive to meet the 30-day deadline to provide the public records or appeal.

“I don’t have that answer at this point, but we’ll be looking into it,” Gvozdich said.

Appeal spurred by Judge Ling ruling

Commonwealth Court previously weighed in on a portion of the dispute after Senior Judge Thomas S. Ling of Bedford County, in a 2023 ruling, concluded that SAPDC was an organization involved in governmental interest and not governmental function. Based on that distinction, Ling said SAPDC was exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law.

After the Watchdog organization appealed Ling’s ruling to Commonwealth Court, a three-member panel of judges identified three factors determining if SAPDC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law.

The first factor pointed to SAPDC’s board of 19 members, which includes 12 elected county commissioners — two each from Blair, Bedford, Cambria, Fulton, Huntingdon and Somerset.

In Mahon’s ruling, he concurred with the Commonwealth Court, which found that based on the make-up of SAPDC’s board of directors, it meets the definition of a local governmental entity.

“It is entirely possible under Commission bylaws that the board at any given meeting could conduct business based solely upon the decisions of elected county commissioners,” Mahon wrote.

The second factor making SAPDC subject to the Right-to-Know Law, based on the Commonwealth Court panel and Mahon’s review, is that its purpose is to enhance economic development in the region.

“The counties involved have banded together to perform functions which local governments often perform on their own,” Mahon wrote. “Even though they may not be essential government functions, they are sufficient to qualify as an agency under the R-to-K Law.”

Revenue comes from governments

The third factor that Mahon used in deciding that SAPDC is subject to the Right-to-Know Law reflected how the commission is funded.

Commonwealth Court, because it lacked information on SAPDC’s funding, sent the case back to Blair County.

Mahon, who reviewed stipulations submitted by the attorneys about SAPDC’s funding, pointed out that 98% of the commission’s funding for the year ending June 30, 2021, came from federal, state and local governmental sources.

Of the commission’s funding for the year ending June 30, 2022, the federal, state and local governmental sources provided 96% of the SAPDC’s operational revenue.

“Considering the factors in combination, where no one factor is dispositive, (SAPDC) is subject to government control; it performs a governmental function; and (it) is subject to the financial control of government funding sources,” Mahon stated in his ruling. “Therefore, the commission is a local agency as defined by the Right to Know Law.”

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