Attorney Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., left, and former Mayor Stephen Reed after Reed’s arraignment July 14 on corruption charges.
The state open-records office today ordered the city to release yet more records in response to a voluminous request by attorneys defending former Harrisburg Mayor Stephen Reed against corruption charges.
In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records found that certain records sought by Reed’s defense team, centered on current Mayor Eric Papenfuse, his time on the board of the Harrisburg Authority and his correspondence with reporters and federal and state investigators, are subject to disclosure and must be released.
The effect of the order, however, may be narrower than it initially appears, as the agency also ruled the city is not required to produce certain records dating to before Papenfuse took office in January 2014. Reed’s attorneys had sought records linked to Papenfuse from a period covering the fall of 2007 through the present date.
The city, in its initial response to the request, had argued that the records in question were privileged, protected by grand jury secrecy rules, overly broad or otherwise exempt under state law and not subject to disclosure.
The state agency dismissed these arguments, finding that the records exist independent of any criminal investigation and that the city failed to meet its burden of proof that records were privileged or outside of its possession.
“The law puts the burden of proof on agencies, and you do have to provide evidence,” said Erik Arneson, executive director of the Office of Open Records.
Nonetheless, the city will likely not be required to provide many of the documents described in the request from Reed’s attorneys, which included broad categories like all records Papenfuse “provided to any third party concerning Mayor Stephen R. Reed from fall 2007 through the present.”
Correspondence sent by a private citizen who later becomes a public official “does not suddenly become available under the right-to-know law,” Arneson said.
The ruling comes one week after the agency agreed with Reed’s attorneys that other records they requested, including correspondence between Reed and various city officials and advisors, records of a City Council spending fund and records of city-owned artifacts, are also subject to disclosure and must be released.
In a third ruling Friday, concerning another set of requests related to city bond offerings over several years, the agency also sided with Reed’s attorneys in ordering the release of relevant records.
Henry E. Hockeimer, Jr., of the Philadelphia law firm Ballard Spahr, sought a vast array of records in a series of requests in July, following the filing of corruption charges against Reed in the midst of an ongoing grand jury probe.
The city purportedly asked for extra time to provide them, but did not specify a time frame, according to the agency’s ruling. At the end of a default 30-day extension, the request was deemed denied. Hockeimer then appealed to the state agency.
Specifically in reference to the records connected to Papenfuse, the city had also argued that Hockeimer’s request was made in bad faith. The agency rejected this argument, saying the city failed to provide any evidence to support it.
“We need the records for Reed’s defense, and they’re clearly public records,” said Pete Shelly, a spokesman for the former mayor’s defense team. “We’re hoping they’ll comply with the order and not waste more time or taxpayers’ money.”
Attorney General Kathleen Kane, announcing the charges against Reed in July, had credited Papenfuse’s tenacity in part for helping the state build its case. “Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and he wouldn’t let it go,” she said.
City solicitor Neil Grover could not be reached for comment on the ruling and whether the city planned to appeal. Papenfuse, reached Friday afternoon, declined to comment, saying only that the city was evaluating its options.
