The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records has dismissed one appeal by a Schuylkill County courthouse employee, but admonished the county for failing to “make a good-faith effort” to provide the public information the worker had sought.

It also agreed the county was justified in denying a second request by the employee.

Denise McGinley-Gerchak - who county commissioners in September 2021 suspended from her job as assistant director of the Tax Claim Bureau - on Sept. 5 filed two Right-To-Know requests.

The first request was for “all emails from Deb Dasch to/from Denise Burke dated (Sep. 1, 2023) with the subject title ‘Bidder Registration.’”

Dasch is the interim director of the Tax Claim Bureau; Burke is a Tax Claim Bureau employee.

The second request was for a “list of all parcels that need a distribution from all sales.”

The Office of Open records on Nov. 21 dismissed the first request as moot because McGinley-Gerchak had gotten the information from another source.

However, OOR Appeals Officer Erika Similo noted, “it is concerning that the county denied Request 1, arguing that no records exist. Upon receiving a request, an agency shall make a good-faith effort to determine that if the record requested is a public record ... and whether the agency has possession, custody, or control of the identified record.”

“As pointed out by the requester, it does not appear that the county undertook such a good-faith effort here,” the OOR wrote.

The OOR determined the county “demonstrated that no records responsive to Request 2 exist in the format requested.”

McGinley-Gerchak argued the list of parcels could have been gotten from a “list of 1,631 parcels the county is in possession of, and this will require no creation or modification.”

The county responded that no list exists with all of the information requested, and that it would have to be created.

The county has a list that may contain the information McGinley-Gerchak requested, but it also contains other information, and each parcel file would have to be reviewed separately, Similo wrote.

According to state law, local governments must comply with requests for public records, except those protected by a privilege, judicial order or decree.

On Sept. 12, the county denied her requests, arguing that arguing that “no records responsive to Request 1 exist within the county’s possession, custody or control, and that no records responsive to Request 2 exist in the format requested,” according to the ruling.

On Sept. 26, McGinley-Gerchak appealed to the state.

To support her challenge, she included a copy of the unredacted Sept. 1 email correspondence between the two women in her first request.

The county responded on Oct. 5, reiterating its denial of the second request, and arguing that the first request “should have been denied as records containing written criticisms of employee.”

It also argued the first request was “moot” as McGinley-Gerchak had gotten it from another source.

McGinley-Gerchak is one of four women who work in the courthouse who in March 2021 filed a federal sexual harassment lawsuit against Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr. They contend he sexually harassed them beginning in 2012, when he was first elected.

Halcovage has denied the allegations, and the suit is wending its way through U.S. District Court in Scranton.

In October 2021, McGinley-Gerchak and Tax Claim Bureau Director Angela Toomey filed an amended suit alleging discrimination and retaliation. They contend county officials failed to stop the harassment, tried to cover it up, and retaliated against them for filing the suit.

Commissioners in September 2021 tried to fire McGinley-Gerchak and Toomey, claiming they performed unauthorized searches using the county’s sophisticated software system, LexisNexis.

They accused the women of compromising the personal information of thousands of people.

When the termination effort failed, they suspended McGinley-Gerchak and Toomey without pay and hired a Harrisburg law firm to conduct an investigation.

The results of that investigation have yet to be made public.

The women in March 2022 won unemployment compensation after the state Board of Labor and Industry ruled the county failed to provide any evidence indicated their suspension was justified. However, they remain on unpaid suspension.