CITY OF PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT

ONE PARKWAY BUILDING

1515 ARCH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102

Diana P. Cortes
City Solicitor

Andrew Segedin
Assistant City Solicitor
andrew.segedin@phila.gov

June 21, 2022

VIA EMAIL

Appeals Officer Ryan W. Liggitt

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Office of Open Records
rliggitt@pa.gov

Re: Shannon v. Philadelphia City Council: AP 2022-0817

Dear Appeals Officer Liggitt:

I represent the Philadelphia City Council in the above-captioned appeal. This letter constitutes
the City’s response to the appeal of Megan Shannon. The City reserves the right to provide further
evidence if the instant request is appealed beyond the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR).
Bowling v. Off. of Open Recs., 990 A.2d 813, 822-23 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010), aff’d 75 A.3d 453 (Pa.
2013). For the reasons discussed below, Ms. Shannon’s appeal should be dismissed as moot in part and
denied in part.

I. Procedural Background

On February 7, 2022, the City received a request from Ms. Shannon pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law, 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.101 et seq., (RTKL) seeking:

• A copy of all e-mails, letters, and documents, including logs or records of telephone
calls reflecting requests for “further conversation” after [the Office of Transportation,
Infrastructure, and Sustainability (OTIS)’s] September 21, 2020 announcement of its
plan for a three-lane layout on Washington Avenue as reflected on OTIS’s website,
https://www.phila.gov/2022-02-05-update-on-washington-avenue-repaving-and-
improvement-project/ (“Following extensive public participation in 2020, the City
announced what the future roadway design for Washington Avenue was going to be. As
design progressed, some neighbors expressed they did not know about opportunities for
engagement and requested further conversations.”).

• A copy of all correspondence between Mayor Kenney’s office and OTIS and
memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations regarding
the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between September 21,
2020 and present.
 • A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Squilla’s office and OTIS and
memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations regarding
the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between September 21,
2020 and present.

• A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Johnson’s office and OTIS and
memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations regarding
the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between September 21,
2020 and present.

• A copy of all petitions Council and/or OTIS received “expressing strong opposition to
the City’s proposed changes to Washington Avenue” between September 21, 2020 and
present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting community members’ “[expression of] a strong

desire for the existing layout to be installed in the future” between September 21, 2020
and present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting OTIS’s assessment of the safety of Washington

Avenue from January 1, 2020 to present.

The City asserted its right to a thirty-day extension on February 14. On March 16, the City
sought an additional two-week extension, citing staffing and technological issues. Ms. Shannon agreed
to the extension on March 17. A second extension was sought on April 1. On April 4, the City received
notice of the instant appeal from the OOR.

Responsive records 1 were provided to Ms. Shannon in the City’s April 20 response to her
appeal. The parties engaged in mediation on May 19 and additional productions were made on May 18
and May 23. On May 26, Ms. Shannon notified the mediator and the City that she wished to proceed to
Final Determination on remaining issues: the City’s redaction and withholding of records exempt as
those reflecting internal, predecisional deliberations and the City’s position that Item 7 of the request,
seeking “all documents reflecting OTIS’s assessment of the safety of Washington Avenue” is
insufficiently specific.

II. Arguments

A. Redacted and Withheld Records Relate to Internal Deliberations Preceding City

Action and Are Therefore Exempt Under the RTKL

The RTKL exempts from disclosure “internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its
members, employees or officials” and “predecisional deliberations between agency members,
employees or officials and members, employees or officials of another agency, including predecisional
deliberations relating to a . . . course of action or any research, memos or other documents used in the
predecisional deliberations.” See 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.708(b)(10)(i)(A). “Section 708(b)(10)(i)

1
The emails accompanying the City’s three earlier productions have been included in this submission
as Exhibit A.
2
codifies the deliberative process privilege and, therefore, demonstrates the General Assembly’s intent
to exempt the deliberative process.” Off. of Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1102 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 2013). The exemption applies broadly to information reflective of a deliberative process rather than
the narrower protection of records that themselves reveal deliberative communications. See McGowan
v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 103 A.3d 374, 383 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) (discussing Scolforo).

To establish exemption under Section 708(b)(10), an agency must show that the records are
internal, precede agency action, and are deliberative in nature. Twp. of Worcester v. Off. of Open Recs.,
129 A.3d 44, 61 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). Draft documents and related discussions preceding future
action are protected from disclosure under Section 708(b)(10). See, e.g., Pa. Dep’t of Corrs. v. Fiorillo,
No. 1043 C.D. 2016, 2017 WL 1548800, at *4 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 1, 2017) (exempting from
disclosure communications in which potential responses to a report and forthcoming press inquiries
were discussed); Hughes v. Pa. Dep’t of Corrs., AP 2019-1341, slip op. at 10-11 (Pa. OOR Oct. 30,
2019) (affirming the exemption of emails that circulated and provided critiques of draft testimony);
Smith v. Pennridge Sch. Dist., AP 2019-1650, slip op. at 5-6 (Pa. OOR Oct. 23, 2019) (affirming the
exemption of an email containing a draft report).

An agency may satisfy its burden of asserting exemption under Section 708(b)(10) by
submitting an affidavit setting forth facts sufficient to establish the deliberative nature of the exempted
records. See Twp. of Worcester, 129 A.3d at 61; see also Moore v. Off. of Open Recs., 992 A.2d 907,
909 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (referring to affidavits attesting to the existence of records). Absent a
showing of bad faith, assertions made in such affidavits are to be accepted as true. McGowan, 103
A.3d at 382-83.

Kyle Allen, Kathleen Lonie, and Jessica Sánchez, Open Records Officers for the three
responding departments, all attest that they were able to review responsive records prior to the City’s
productions to Ms. Shannon. Aff. Kyle Allen, Open Records Officer, Managing Dir. Off. (Allen Aff.)
¶ 4 (June 21, 2022), Exhibit B; Aff. Kathleen Lonie, Open Records Officer, Phila. Mayor’s Off. (Lonie
Aff.) ¶ 4 (June 17, 2022), Exhibit C; Aff. Jessica Sánchez, Open Records Officer, Phila. City Council
(Sánchez Aff.) ¶ 6 (June 17, 2022), Exhibit D. The three Open Records Officers all noted proposed
redactions of messages between City employees that exchanged draft language and otherwise
discussed forthcoming public statements, responses to media inquiries, and similar actions and were
aware that emails made up entirely of such draft language and related discussions were to be withheld
from production. Allen Aff. ¶ 4; Lonie Aff. ¶ 5; Sánchez Aff. ¶ 7.

The records redacted and withheld here are precisely the types of records to which the
Commonwealth Court and OOR have applied the exemption of Section 708(b)(10), see, e.g., Fiorillo,
2017 WL 1548800, at *4; Hughes, slip op. at 10-11; Smith, slip op. at 5-6, and Ms. Shannon does not
provide any evidence that the responding departments have acted in bad faith, see McGowan, 103 A.3d
at 382-83. Therefore, the City respectfully requests that Ms. Shannon’s appeal be denied as to this
issue.

3
 B. Item 7 of the Request Seeking “All Documents Reflecting OTIS’s Assessment of the
Safety of Washington Avenue” Does Not Provide Information Sufficient for the City
to Identify Records Responsive to the Request, Nonetheless the City Is Producing
Records with This Response

“A written request should identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to
enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested . . . .” 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.703; see
also Mollick v. Twp. of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859, 871 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (“[I]t is the requestor’s
responsibility to tell an agency what records he or she wants.”). When weighing the specificity of a
request, Pennsylvania courts consider whether the request: (1) identifies a transaction or activity of the
responding agency, (2) identifies “a discrete group of documents,” and (3) is sufficiently narrow with
respect to the period of the records requested. See Pa. Dep’t of Educ. v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119
A.3d 1121, 1124-26 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).

A request is sufficiently specific when “[t]here are no judgments to be made as to whether the
documents are ‘related’ to the request.” See Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot. v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260, 265 (Pa.
Commw. Ct. 2012); see also Leuba v. Allegheny Cnty., AP 2018-0686, slip op. at 6 (Pa. OOR June 27,
2018) (concluding that a request was insufficiently specific because it required the county to determine
which agencies were associated with a proposal). “[A] request which requires an agency to make a
subjective judgment in order to determine whether records are responsive to the request is
insufficiently specific.” Uhr v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., AP 2013-2047, slip op. at 5 (Pa. OOR Dec. 2,
2013). As such, requests for “all” records do not provide sufficient specificity for agencies to locate
responsive records. See, e.g., Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ali, 43 A.3d 532, 535-36 (Pa. Commw. Ct.
2012) (determining that a request for “all correspondence . . . concerning” specific projects was
insufficiently specific); Assoc. Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 747 A.2d 962,
965-66 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2000) (finding requests for “any and all” documents relating to a particular
subject to be insufficiently specific). Further, a request may be insufficiently specific if it does not
provide information necessary for the agency to retrieve responsive records. See Tokarcik v. Pa. Dep’t
of Transp., AP 2016-0671, slip op. at 6 (Pa. OOR May 13, 2016) (finding a request to be insufficiently
specific due to the department’s inability to locate records without additional information such as
vehicle title and identification numbers).

4
 Kyle Allen, Open Records Officer for the Managing Director’s Office -- which encompasses
OTIS, attests that he initiated a search of all applicable digital and hardcopy files for records
responsive to Item 7 of Ms. Shannon’s request and engaged with OTIS employees involved in the
Washington Avenue project. Allen Aff. ¶¶ 1, 6. These efforts led to the conclusion that Ms. Shannon’s
request was broad and that responsive information would be included in more general studies and
assessments rather than any document specific to the safety of Washington Avenue. Allen Aff. ¶ 6.
Three publicly available records 2 have been identified as relevant to Ms. Shannon’s request, however,
Mr. Allen attests that additional records cannot be located without further information regarding what
specific records are being requested. Allen Aff. ¶¶ 6-7; see also 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.704(b) (“[A]n
agency may respond to a request by notifying the requester that the record is available through publicly
accessible electronic means.”); Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 119 A.3d at 1126 n.8 (recognizing that the
identification of responsive records does not itself satisfy Section 703 of the RTKL). Mr. Allen is
confident, based on his knowledge and experience, that all responsive, non-exempt records have been
provided. Allen Aff. ¶ 8.

Evidence has not been advanced that the Managing Director’s Office has acted in bad faith. See
McGowan, 103 A.3d at 382-83. Item 7 of Ms. Shannon’s request is precisely the sort of request for
“all” documents disfavored by the Commonwealth Court, see Ali, 43 A.3d at 535-36, and Mr. Allen
attests that OTIS is unable to locate different or additional records without more information, Allen
Aff. ¶ 7. Therefore, to the extent that responsive records are being provided with this submission, the
City respectfully requests that the appeal as to this issue be dismissed as moot. See Urso v. Haverford
Twp. Sch. Dist., AP 2021-1505, slip op. at 4 (Pa. OOR Sept. 20, 2021) (“[T]he appeal is dismissed as
moot insofar as it pertains to the records provided on appeal.”). To the extent that Ms. Shannon has
sought different or additional records, the City respectfully requests that the appeal be denied as to this
issue as Item 7 of the request does not provide sufficient information for the City to locate different or
additional records.

C. The Instant Request Was Filed Pursuant to the RTKL and the City Charter Is a
Distinct Means of Disclosure Under Which the OOR Cannot Grant Access

Ms. Shannon now raises, for the first time, that the City Charter entitles her to records beyond
those available through the RTKL process and argues that the OOR has the authority to grant records
requests via this separate mechanism. As outlined below, in so doing Ms. Shannon impermissibly
seeks to alter her request, misstates the OOR’s ability to grant access to records potentially available
via separate avenues of public access, ignores the differences between the City Charter and RTKL in
terms of records available and accessibility, and fails to account for privileges existing outside of the
RTKL that would be implicated in any request made under the Charter. For the reasons set forth
below, the City respectfully submits that consideration of such arguments is unnecessary for the
OOR’s adjudication of this appeal.

2
The identified public records are two documents relating to crash information
(https://www.phila.gov/media/20220404131815/Public-Request-Washington-Avenue-Grays-Ferry-to-
4th-Street-1-1.pdf; https://www.phila.gov/media/20220205155040/OTIS-Washington-Ave-crash-
analysis-2016-2020.pdf) and a more general assessment of Washington Avenue
(https://www.phila.gov/media/20210420091812/Washington-Ave-improvement-technical-analysis-
20200722.pdf).
5
 As an initial matter, the City respectfully notes that Ms. Shannon filed her request under the
RTKL, not the City Charter. See Notice of Appeal at 12-13, Exhibit E. The City respectfully submits
that Ms. Shannon’s request should be evaluated within the framework she chose. See Pa. Dep’t of Lab.
& Indus. v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823, 833 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014) (“Other statutes that provide other
avenues, and set other parameters for access to records, . . . operate independently of the RTKL.”);
Harmon v. Londonderry Twp., AP 2017-2163, slip op. at 4 (Pa. OOR Dec. 20, 2017) (“Once a request
is made under the RTKL, it cannot be altered on appeal.”). Indeed, the City’s response would have
been materially different had her request been submitted under the Charter.

Next, and most importantly, Ms. Shannon is incorrect in her assertion that the OOR may
provide access to records via statutory mechanisms separate from the RTKL, and the authorities cited
are both factually distinguishable from the present matter and do not support that offered proposition.
In Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Seder, the Commission -- distinguishable from the
instant matter -- denied access, not based on an enumerated exemption within the RTKL, but rather by
claiming that the Public Utility Code prohibited disclosure. See 139 A.3d 165, 168 (Pa. 2016); see also
65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.102 (defining a “Public record” as a record “not exempt from being disclosed
under any other Federal or State law or regulation”). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the
petition for appeal “primarily to review the propriety of the Commonwealth Court’s interpretation of”
a subsection of the Public Utility Code rather than an RTKL-specific matter, see id. at 171, and found
relevant the Code’s express intent to supplement to RTKL, see id. at 174 n.11, 174-75. In contrast, the
relevant sections of the City Charter make no mention at all of the RTKL. See generally Phila. Home
Rule Charter § 5-1100-04. 3

Further, while Ms. Shannon is correct that Heltzel acknowledged the authority of the OOR to
interpret statutes other than the RTKL, see 90 A.3d at 828-829 (discussing the need for the OOR to
interpret other statutes in order to evaluate requests made under the RTKL), the Commonwealth Court
also “recognize[d] the distinction between interpreting terms of a federal statute and effectuating public
access under a separate statutory scheme,” see id. at 834. Contrary to Ms. Shannon’s point, the
Commonwealth Court concluded that the “OOR [was] not in a position to enforce [the Emergency
Planning and Community Right–to–Know Act’s] conditions on public access under the RTKL” See id.
at 833.

Ms. Shannon’s argument also ignores the distinctions between the City Charter and RTKL. As
stated in the opinion attached to Ms. Shannon response, “[t]he Charter and the RTKL have different
standards, different exceptions, and different procedures. They are separate and distinct statutes that
may provide a requester with two separate paths to potentially the same information.” Auerbach v. City
of Phila., No. 2638, slip op. at 8 (C.C.P. Phila. May 3, 2022). The City Charter differs from the RTKL
in, among other ways, how records are defined, compare Phila. Home Rule Charter § 5-1100 (defining
“City records” as only those “owned” by the City and “preserved or appropriate for preservation as
evidence of the organization, functions, policies, duties, procedures, operations, or other activities of
the City or because of the informational value of data contained therein”), with 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. §
67.102 (defining “Record” with no such limitations), the public’s access to records, compare Phila.

3
The relevant subsections of the City Charter were enacted in 1951, Phila. Home Rule Charter § 5-
1100 Annotations., and predate the earliest version of the RTKL, which was enacted in 1957, see John
L. Gedid, Pennsylvania’s 2008 Right to Know Law: Open Access at Last, 49 Duq. L. Rev. 459, 459
(2011).

6
Home Rule Charter § 5-1104 (permitting the “public inspection” of records subject to “reasonable
regulations governing the time, place and manner of . . . inspection”), with 65 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 67.701
(providing for the “inspection and duplication” of public records subject to exceptions), and applicable
fees, compare Phila. Home Rule Charter § 5-1101(b) (permitting fees “as shall fairly reimburse the
City for the cost of such service”), with Official RTKL Fee Schedule, Off. of Open Recs.,
https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/RTKL/FeeStructure.cfm (last visited on June 21, 2022).

Finally, Ms. Shannon is incorrect in stating that the City Charter does not permit redaction or
exemption for internal, predecisional deliberations. The City maintains that the exemptions set forth
under the RTKL necessarily inform the City’s ability to withhold information under the Charter and
the Charter language does not limit those legally recognized grounds for confidentiality. Specifically,
records may be redacted or exempted pursuant to the deliberative process privilege. See
Commonwealth v. Vartan, 733 A.2d 1258, 1264-65 (Pa. 1999) (recognizing the privilege and noting
that it “benefits the public, and not the officials who assert the privilege”); Commonwealth v. McClure,
172 A.3d 668, 694 (Pa. Super. 2017) (“[T]he [deliberative process] privilege is grounded in
constitutional principles of separation of powers and the due process afforded by independent decision-
making.”); see also Phila. Home Rule Charter § 5-1104 (making unavailable for public inspection
records “the nondisclosure of which is legally privileged”). As stated above, Section 708(b)(10)
codified the deliberative process privilege and thus redactions and exemptions would be the same
under both the privilege and the RTKL. See Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1102; accord Off. of Gen. Couns. v.
Bumsted, 247 A.3d 71, 82 n.12 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2021); Twp. of Worcester, 129 A.3d at 61; Pa. Dep’t
of Educ. v. Bagwell, 114 A.3d 1113, 1116 n.3 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2015).

In sum, Ms. Shannon filed the instant request pursuant to the RTKL, not the City Charter, and
the City’s asserted exemptions do not rely on the City Charter or any authority other than the RTKL
and related court and administrative decisions. Therefore, it is unnecessary for the OOR to discuss the
potential applicability of the City Charter in its final determination. See Heltzel, 90 A.3d at 833 (“[A]
right-to-know request cannot be refashioned by OOR . . . in the interest of providing responsive
records.”); see also Hawach v. Palmer Twp., AP 2021-1816, slip op. at 4-5 (Pa. OOR Nov. 2, 2021)
(“[T]he OOR’s review on appeal is confined to the Request as written . . . .”).

Without waiving the foregoing, the City respectfully advances that the City Charter is a wholly
distinct means of access, see supra (discussing the differences between public access under the RTKL
and City Charter), with which the OOR may not grant public access, see Heltzel, 90 A.3d at 833-34,
and for which similar exemptions would apply, see Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1102 (recognizing the RTKL’s
codification of the deliberative process privilege). As such, the City respectfully requests that Ms.
Shannon’s appeal be denied as to this issue.

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that the instant appeal be dismissed as
moot in part and denied in part.

7
 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Andrew Segedin

Assistant City Solicitor

Attachments

Cc:
Kyle Allen (via email)
Kathleen Lonie (via email)
Jessica Sánchez (via email)
Feige Grundman (via email)
Megan Shannon (via email)

8
 Shannon v. Philadelphia City Council, AP 2022-0817

Affidavit of Kyle Allen, Open Records Officer, Philadelphia Managing Director’s Office

My name is Kyle Allen and, as Open Records Officer for the Philadelphia Managing Director’s Office, I am
authorized to execute this affidavit. I state the following to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief
under penalty of perjury pursuant to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities:

1. I have worked in the Philadelphia Managing Director’s Office, within which the Office of
Transportation, Infrastructure, and Sustainability (OTIS) is housed, for five years and currently
hold the title of Director of Finance. I have also served as the office’s Open Records Officer for
two years and, as part of my duties, I have extensive experience responding to records requests
pursuant to the Right to Know Law (RTKL).

2. I am familiar with the above-referenced appeal stemming from a request submitted by Megan Shannon
pursuant to the RTKL seeking:

• A copy of all e-mails, letters, and documents, including logs or records of

telephone calls reflecting requests for “further conversation” after OTIS’s
September 21, 2020 announcement of its plan for a three-lane layout on
Washington Avenue as reflected on OTIS’s website, https://www.phila.gov/2022-
02-05-update-on-washington-avenue-repaving-and-improvement-project/
(“Following extensive public participation in 2020, the City announced what the
future roadway design for Washington Avenue was going to be. As design
progressed, some neighbors expressed they did not know about opportunities for
engagement and requested further conversations.”).

• A copy of all correspondence between Mayor Kenney’s office and OTIS and
memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Squilla's office and OTIS

and memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Johnson's office and OTIS

and memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all petitions Council and/or OTIS received “expressing strong

opposition to the City’s proposed changes to Washington Avenue” between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting community members’ “[expression of] a strong

desire for the existing layout to be installed in the future” between September 21,
2020 and present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting OTIS's assessment of the safety of Washington

Avenue from January 1, 2020 to present.
 3. With respect to Items 2, 3, and 4, I interpreted Ms. Shannon’s request to be seeking emails between
OTIS employees and Mayor Kenney, the named councilmembers, and their staffs. I understood that
the Law Department and Office of Innovation and Technology required the names of specific
individuals in order to conduct an email search. I identified Michael Carroll and Lily Reynolds as the
OTIS employees most likely to have communications with Mayor Kenney, the named
councilmembers, and/or their offices.

4. I am familiar with the emails and related attachments located during the email search conducted by
the Law Department and Office of Innovation and Technology and was able to review unredacted
copies of the records provided to Ms. Shannon. These redactions included personal contact
information and information relating to minors. I also noted redactions of proposed public
statements, responses to media inquiries, constituent outreach, and similar draft language and related
deliberations. These exchanges were among City employees; solicited or offered edits, feedback, and
commentary with language such as “Let me know your thoughts” and “Can I get quick feedback on
this”; and preceded any final versions or actions. I understand that emails consisting entirely of such
drafts and discussions were not included in the production to Ms. Shannon.

5. With respect to Items 1, 5, and 6, based on the language of the request and context provided by the
City’s counsel following mediation with Ms. Shannon, I interpreted Ms. Shannon’s request to be for
petitions and constituent letters advocating positions relating to Washington Avenue. I searched or
caused to be searched all digital and hardcopy files in which such petitions and letters would be kept
and sent them to counsel. I understand that they have been provided to Ms. Shannon with any
personal contact information redacted.

6. Finally, with respect to Item 7, I performed a search or instructed others to perform a search of all
digital and hardcopy files in which such assessments would be stored. I also discussed Item 7 of the
request with OTIS employees more directly engaged in the Washington Avenue project. It was
determined that Ms. Shannon’s request was broad as such information was likely to be included in
more general studies/assessments rather than studies/assessments specific to Washington Avenue
safety. My office identified three public documents, two relating to crash data and trends and one
general analysis of Washington Avenue, with information pertinent to Ms. Shannon’s request. It is
my understanding that links to these documents will be provided to Ms. Shannon.

7. To the extent that Ms. Shannon has sought records different than or in addition to the public records
provided, her request as written does not provide my office with sufficient detail necessary to locate
additional or different responsive records.

8. Based on my experience and knowledge, both with OTIS operations and responding to records
requests, I am confident that all non-exempt records responsive to Ms. Shannon’s request have been
provided.

06/21/2022
By__________________________ on _____________________

Kyle Allen
Open Records Officer
Philadelphia Managing Director’s Office
 Shannon v. Philadelphia City Council, AP 2022-0817

Affidavit of Kathleen Lonie, Open Records Officer, Philadelphia Mayor’s Office

My name is Kathleen Lonie and, as Open Records Officer for the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office, I am authorized
to execute this affidavit. I state the following to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief under penalty
of perjury pursuant to 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities:

1. I have worked in the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office for fourteen years and have served as Open
Records Officer during that entire period. I am very familiar with the Mayor’s Office’s practices
and, as part of my duties, I have extensive experience responding to records requests pursuant
to the Right to Know Law (RTKL).

2. I am also familiar with the above-referenced appeal stemming from a request submitted by Megan
Shannon pursuant to the RTKL seeking:

• A copy of all e-mails, letters, and documents, including logs or records of

telephone calls reflecting requests for “further conversation” after OTIS’s
September 21, 2020 announcement of its plan for a three-lane layout on
Washington Avenue as reflected on OTIS’s website, https://www.phila.gov/2022-
02-05-update-on-washington-avenue-repaving-and-improvement-project/
(“Following extensive public participation in 2020, the City announced what the
future roadway design for Washington Avenue was going to be. As design
progressed, some neighbors expressed they did not know about opportunities for
engagement and requested further conversations.”).

• A copy of all correspondence between Mayor Kenney’s office and OTIS and
memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Squilla's office and OTIS

and memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all correspondence between councilmember Johnson's office and OTIS

and memoranda/notes reflecting telephone, electronic, or in-person conversations
regarding the Washington Avenue repaving and improvement project between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all petitions Council and/or OTIS received “expressing strong

opposition to the City’s proposed changes to Washington Avenue” between
September 21, 2020 and present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting community members’ “[expression of] a strong

desire for the existing layout to be installed in the future” between September 21,
2020 and present.

• A copy of all documents reflecting OTIS's assessment of the safety of Washington

Avenue from January 1, 2020 to present.
 3. I interpreted Item 2 of Ms. Shannon’s request to be seeking emails exchanged between Mayor
Kenney and/or members of his staff and City employees working within OTIS. To assist in the Law
Department and Office of Innovation and Technology’s search for responsive emails, I identified
seven individuals within the Mayor’s Office who, in addition to Mayor Kenney, would be most
likely to communicate with OTIS regarding Washington Avenue. These identified staffers were:
James Engler, Deborah Mahler, Joy Huertas, Brian Clinton, Mariele McGlazer, Orlando Almonte,
and Julia Hinckley.

4. I am familiar with the emails and associated attachments located in the search conducted by the Law
Department and Office of Innovation and Technology and was able to review unredacted copies of
records provided to Ms. Shannon. I noted that many of the redactions involved individuals’ personal
contact information as well as information relating to a constituent, who is a minor.

5. I additionally reviewed emails that contained redactions of proposed public statements, responses to
media inquiries, constituent outreach, and similar draft language and related deliberations. These
exchanges were among City employees; solicited or offered edits, feedback, and commentary with
language such as “Let me know your thoughts” and “Can I get quick feedback on this”; and
preceded any final versions or actions. I understand that emails consisting entirely of such drafts and
discussions were not included in the production to Ms. Shannon.

6. With respect to the remainder of the request, I understood -- based on my reading of the request and
counsel’s guidance following mediation with Ms. Shannon -- that remaining records sought from the
Mayor’s Office to include constituent letters and petitions. I performed or caused others to perform a
search of all digital and hardcopy files in which such petitions and letters would be stored. These
efforts did not produce any records other than those found in the email search.

7. I was unsurprised by the lack of records other than those located in the email search because I did
not recall any relevant letters or petitions delivered by other means and, based on my experience
within the Mayor’s Office, constituents generally email Mayor Kenney directly with positions and
concerns.

8. Based on my experience with and knowledge of both the RTKL and the operations of the Mayor’s
Office, I am confident that the above-described efforts have produced all non-exempt records
responsive to Ms. Shannon’s request.

June 17, 2022

By__________________________ on _____________________

Kathleen Lonie
Open Records Officer
Philadelphia Mayor’s Office