On December 11th, Casey Grove submitted a RTK request for any correspondence fitting the following criteria:
- From 2016, all records & forms of correspondence to/from/regarding PennDot.
- From 2016 to current, all records and forms of correspondence to/from/regarding the “highway transfer turnback program.”
- Additionally, all emails from 2016 with subject or discussion on Penns Cave Road to/from Laron Horner, Jennifer Snyder, Doug Bierly, Joel Myers, Charles Stover, Robert Rayman, or Planning Commission.
- “Correspondence” is to include emails.
Here is that request:
On December 13th, he received the following response, indicating the need for a 30 day extension:
On January 13th, he received the following response with approximately 50 attachments:
The records sent do not include all of the correspondence records that were granted. We know this because we had obtained some correspondence from other sources that is NOT included in the files we were sent. This is DEFINITIVE PROOF that our township is keeping information from the public while claiming not to.
I spent several hours sorting through the attached files, removing duplicate records, and putting them in chronological order for you to read. Here is what we received, minus comments from citizens:
How was this Penns Cave deal initiated? That is what we wanted to find out. Unfortunately there are no records available of correspondence prior to October 18th, when our public servant and Gregg Township resident, Michael Lesniak, sent a letter as a resident expressing concern.
Was this deal discussed telepathically? As Mike Arthur pointed out in his email response, “This smacks of secret, backroom deals.” The response to this Right-To-Know request proves that to be an accurate statement.
Here is just one record of correspondence dated December 2nd that was NOT included in the records we were sent:
As you can see, this letter was sent to the Gregg Township Supervisors, Attn: Jennifer Snyder (our Right-To-Know officer).
If your mind isn’t blown yet, read the following correspondence from our file that was also NOT included in the records we received:
This plainly is “correspondence to/from/regarding PennDot.” Why wasn’t it included?
This can’t be tolerated anymore. It’s time to clean house.