Borough Cites Non‑Criminal Investigation Exemption in Denying Email Request: What That Means for Columbia Residents

By ColumbiaPA.online Staff
Published: February 26, 2026

COLUMBIA, Pa. — ColumbiaPa.online requested a narrow set of Borough emails from the week surrounding August 18, 2025 in order to clarify a series of events of clear public interest. On February 26, 2026, the Borough’s Open Records Officer issued a formal Right‑to‑Know Law (RTKL) denial, citing Section 708(b)(17)(i)–(ii)—the statute that allows agencies to withhold complaints and investigative correspondence tied to a non‑criminal investigation.

What We Asked For—and What the Borough Said

On February 19, 2026, ColumbiaPa.online submitted an RTKL request for emails between a Borough official and another party for the week and day of August 18, 2025. The Borough denied the request on February 26, writing:

“Records that are exempt from disclosure by law have been withheld pursuant to the RTKL. The withheld information is exempt from disclosure under Section 708(b)(17)(i) and (ii) of the RTKL.”

The denial letter also explains the standard appeal process to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR)—including the 15‑business‑day filing deadline and the availability of an online portal. [

What Does 708(b)(17) Mean?

Pennsylvania’s RTKL, enacted in 2008, presumes government records are public unless an exemption applies. One of the most frequently invoked exemptions is Section 708(b)(17), which covers non‑criminal investigations—that is, inquiries that are administrative, personnel‑related, ethics‑related, code‑enforcement, or similar, but not criminal prosecutions. Subsection (i) shields complaints submitted to an agency, while subsection (ii) protects investigative materials, notes, correspondence, and reports created or used during such non‑criminal probes.

Pennsylvania courts have recognized that when an agency relies on 708(b)(17) to deny access, it is asserting that the requested records relate to a non‑criminal investigation. In Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Perretta, the Commonwealth Court reversed an OOR order and confirmed that complaints and related materials in a non‑criminal investigation can be withheld under 708(b)(17)(i), emphasizing that the exemption is intended to encourage cooperation with agency investigations.

Key Takeaways for Residents

1. The denial signals a non‑criminal investigation context.
   The Borough’s specific citation of 708(b)(17)(i)–(ii) indicates that, in the Borough’s view, the emails we requested are either a complaint itself or investigative communications tied to a non‑criminal inquiry; this is consistent with how agencies and courts have applied that section.
2. This is not the same as a criminal case.
   Section 708(b)(17) concerns non‑criminal inquiries (e.g., administrative or personnel investigations). The exemption does not imply criminal charges, nor does it determine whether any policy violations occurred—it only addresses public access to records during or after such inquiries.
3. Agencies may, but are not required to, withhold under an exemption.
   Use of an RTKL exemption is discretionary; the law permits, but does not mandate, withholding. The burden of proof rests with the agency if an appeal is filed; the agency must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the exemption applies.

How the Appeal Works—and What the OOR Looks For

The Borough’s denial letter includes standard appeal instructions. To challenge the denial, a requester must file an appeal with the Office of Open Records within 15 business days of the mailing date, attaching the original request and the denial. The OOR may decide the case based on affidavits and evidence, or—less commonly—hold a hearing. In appeals involving 708(b)(17), agencies typically submit sworn statements explaining (1) what non‑criminal authority they have to investigate and (2) how the withheld records fit within the scope of that investigation.

Notably, recent guidance and case discussions emphasize that if the agency cannot substantiate the connection between the records and a non‑criminal investigation, the OOR may order disclosure, sometimes with redactions to protect sensitive information. Conversely, when the agency’s affidavits are specific and credible, the OOR and courts have upheld denials under 708(b)(17).

Why Transparency—and Process—Both Matter

ColumbiaPa.online supports robust public access to government records and a fair process that protects the integrity of legitimate investigations. Pennsylvania’s RTKL is designed to promote transparency while recognizing that some records—especially those within active or sensitive non‑criminal inquiries—require temporary or permanent protection. The statute’s structure reflects this balance: a presumption of openness, exemptions tailored to specific harms, and an independent appeals venue (OOR) to test an agency’s claims.

Community trust depends on both timely disclosure and responsible handling of sensitive matters. By requesting a narrow slice of correspondence from August 2025, our goal was—and remains—to assemble a verifiable timeline of events of clear public interest. The Borough has exercised its discretion to withhold records under 708(b)(17), and the next step provided by law is an appeal—if filed, it will require the Borough to justify that the specific messages fall within a protected non‑criminal investigative file.

What We’ll Do Next

• Review the appeal option. We are evaluating an appeal to the OOR within the statutory 15‑business‑day deadline listed in the Borough’s denial letter and posted on the OOR website. An appeal would focus on whether each withheld email truly qualifies as a complaint or investigative correspondence under 708(b)(17).
• Pursue parallel records. When appropriate, we will seek non‑exempt materials—such as meeting minutes, public reports, or policies—that can shed additional light without encroaching on protected investigative files. (The RTKL anticipates that not all responsive records are exempt and requires agencies to provide non‑exempt portions when possible.)
• Keep the community informed. Should the OOR issue a ruling—whether it affirms the Borough’s position, orders redactions and release, or requires disclosure—we will report the result and the reasoning, so residents understand not only the outcome but also the legal standards that shaped it.

What Residents Should Know Right Now

• A denial citing 708(b)(17)(i)–(ii) typically means the agency asserts the records are part of a non‑criminal investigation, such as an administrative or personnel inquiry. This does not equate to a criminal case, nor does it prove wrongdoing.
• Requesters have a clear right to appeal to the Office of Open Records within 15 business days. The agency bears the burden of proof to show that a claimed exemption legitimately applies to the specific records withheld.
• Transparency is a process. The RTKL builds in both access and accountability, and appeals are the tool that keeps that system honest.

Editor’s Note: This report relies on the Borough’s February 26, 2026 denial letter, which cites RTKL §708(b)(17)(i)–(ii) and outlines appeal rights; and on authoritative summaries and case discussions explaining the scope and purpose of the non‑criminal investigation exemption. We have intentionally omitted private correspondence and identifying personal details to protect individual privacy while we pursue official records and determinations through legal channels.

Have documents or tips relevant to this story? Contact our newsroom. We verify all materials and protect confidential sources within the boundaries of Pennsylvania law. editor@onlinecommunitynews.com