York County denied an RTK Media request for the final scoring, ranking, evaluation and recommendation records used in its opioid-settlement grant process, citing Pennsylvania's internal predecisional-deliberation exemption and two prior Office of Open Records matters involving Gina DeMaria and York County.
The denial raises a legitimate legal question: do the cases York County cited actually establish that the final scoring records sought here are exempt?
The answer is not obvious from the denial letter alone.
What RTK Media requested
RTK Media filed request R000402-082726 on August 27, 2026. The request sought the final scoring sheets, ranking sheets, evaluation matrices, award recommendation sheets and records showing the amount recommended for each applicant for York County Opioid Settlement Fund grants approved by the County Commissioners in December 2025.
The request expressly excluded emails, drafts and internal correspondence. It was aimed at the final evaluation and recommendation records used to make the award decisions.
York County invoked a 30-day extension on September 3. On October 1, the County denied the request for what it described as the "grading review sheets," relying on Section 708(b)(10)(i)(A) of the Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law and citing DeMaria v. York County, OOR Dkt. AP 2024-0417, and DeMaria v. York County, OOR Dkt. AP 2025-0420.
RTK Media did not appeal this denial to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records. No appeals officer or court therefore ruled on whether these particular scoring records were properly withheld. The analysis below identifies legal questions that could have been raised on appeal. It is not a finding that York County violated the RTKL.
The exemption has three separate requirements
York County cited the exemption for internal, predecisional deliberations. Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decisions make clear that this is not a one-word exemption for anything that was used before a government decision.
Under Kaplin v. Lower Merion Township, the agency must establish that the material is internal, predecisional and deliberative in character. The decision also describes deliberative material as involving recommendations or opinions rather than material that is purely factual.
That distinction matters here because RTK Media did not ask for general emails discussing applications. It asked for the final scoring, rankings, matrices and recommendation records used to select grant recipients.
"Final" does not automatically mean public, but it matters
Calling a document "final" does not automatically defeat the exemption. A final recommendation prepared before commissioners make the ultimate award decision may still be predecisional to that later decision.
But the reverse is also true. The fact that a scoring sheet was created before final approval does not automatically make every part of that record deliberative.
In McGowan v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Commonwealth Court held that even records reflecting predecisional deliberations may contain purely factual material that must be examined separately. The court remanded for in-camera review to determine whether factual portions could be disclosed.
That creates an obvious question for numerical scoring sheets: even if evaluators' comments or recommendations are deliberative, are the final scores, rankings, applicant names and recommended amounts also exempt in their entirety, or could factual portions be separated and released?
Evaluation forms are not automatically exempt
There is also OOR precedent showing that records used to evaluate competing proposals are not categorically confidential under the predecisional-deliberation exemption.
In Fajerman v. Global Leadership Academy Charter School, OOR Dkt. AP 2021-0881, the requester sought evaluation bid forms used to assess internet-service providers. The OOR granted the appeal because the school did not prove that the evaluation records qualified for the internal predecisional-deliberation exemption.
That case does not mean York County's opioid scoring sheets must be public. Different facts can produce different results. It does show why "evaluation form" and "predecisional" cannot simply be treated as interchangeable labels.
The first DeMaria citation appears narrower than York County's denial suggests
RTK Media located a later OOR decision that cites DeMaria v. York County, AP 2024-0417. In that later decision, the OOR cites the DeMaria case for a specific proposition: communications between advisory-board members and agency employees can be considered internal for purposes of Section 708(b)(10).
That later OOR decision does not describe AP 2024-0417 as establishing a categorical rule that final scoring sheets, rankings or grant evaluations are exempt from disclosure.
That does not make York County's citation necessarily wrong. AP 2024-0417 may contain additional analysis relevant to the County's position. But citing the case in a denial of "grading review sheets" without explaining how that case applies to the specific final records requested can leave a broader impression than the publicly identifiable proposition supports.
The second docket number is difficult to verify as cited
York County's denial also cites DeMaria v. York County, OOR Dkt. AP 2025-0420.
RTK Media's review of publicly indexed OOR materials did not locate a final determination matching that exact citation. Other DeMaria matters from the same period are publicly available. AP 2025-0422 and AP 2025-0423 were dismissed as premature, while AP 2025-0516 involved attorney-client privilege over emails.
AP 2025-0422 / 0423 and AP 2025-0516 do not themselves establish that final opioid-grant scoring sheets are exempt.
RTK Media is therefore not labeling the AP 2025-0420 citation false. The docket may exist but be difficult to locate through publicly indexed search results, or the denial may contain a typographical or docket-number error. Either way, the citation as written is difficult for a requester or member of the public to independently verify.
There is another statutory question if the records reached the Commissioners
Section 708(b)(10)(ii) contains an important limitation on the predecisional exemption. A record that is not otherwise exempt and is presented to a quorum for deliberation under the Sunshine Act is a public record.
The County's December 17, 2025 meeting records show the Commissioners approved opioid-settlement grants totaling more than $3.3 million over a three-year period. The meeting minutes list the organizations and departments receiving awards.
The denial does not say whether the final scoring, ranking or recommendation documents requested by RTK Media were presented to a quorum of the Commissioners before that vote. If they were, Section 708(b)(10)(ii) could have been another issue for an OOR appeal to examine.
Why this matters
The dispute is not simply over paperwork.
Final scores and rankings can help the public understand why one organization received settlement funds while another did not, whether applicants were evaluated consistently, and how recommendations translated into millions of dollars in public grant awards.
The law does protect genuine internal deliberation. Agencies need room to discuss proposed courses of action before a decision is made. But the RTKL also places the burden on an agency to establish that an exemption applies to the specific records being withheld.
Those two principles can coexist.
RTK Media did not appeal this denial
This request is different from some RTK Media records disputes because we did not pursue an appeal within the statutory appeal window.
That means the County's denial remains untested as to these particular records. RTK Media cannot report that the OOR found the denial proper, because no such ruling occurred. We also cannot report that the OOR would have ordered disclosure.
What we can document is the request, the County's legal rationale, the authorities it cited and the legal questions those citations leave open.
The complete denial is published
RTK Media is publishing the full request history and denial in the Files library so readers can review the County's language directly.
Don't speculate. Document.