As agencies rely more heavily on Facebook, Instagram, and similar platforms to reach residents, the Office of Open Records (OOR) has reported that Right-to-Know Law requests involving social media content are increasingly common, and those disputes are expected to continue.
If you’re a school board member, administrator, or a member of the public, you may wonder whether a public official’s “personal” Facebook page, X account, or other social media can be requested under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). The short answer: sometimes.
Need immediate clarity? Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law is fact-specific. If you aren’t sure if a specific account or post is subject to disclosure, our Education Law team can provide a definitive analysis.
The Two-Part RTKL Test for Public Records on Social Media
Under the Right-to-Know Law, a social media post can be a public record if it meets a two-part test:
Part 1: Does the Post Document Agency Activity?
It relates to a transaction or activity of an agency (for example, a school district’s programs, budget, policies, or decisions).
Part 2: Was the Post Created in an Official Capacity?
It is created, received, or kept in connection with that agency activity (for example, a board member posting about district business in their official role).
If both parts are met, the post may be a public record and could be subject to disclosure, unless an exception applies (such as attorney-client privilege or certain investigation records).
How PA Courts Define Public Records on Social Media
Two recent cases give important guidance on when social media content is treated as a public record and when it is not:
- A Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, Penncrest School District v. Cagle
- A trial-court decision applying that framework, Wyoming Borough v. Boyer
Together, these cases show that courts are not simply labeling entire accounts “public” or “private.” Instead, they focus on what each post is actually doing.
What Penncrest School District v. Cagle Says
In Penncrest School District v. Cagle, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed how this test applies to public officials’ social media accounts. The Court did not create a special “social media rule.” Instead, it clarified how to apply the existing Right-to-Know test to posts on platforms like Facebook or X.
Key Takeaways from Penncrest:
- The focus is on the content of the post, not what the account looks like.
- Labels like “official,” “personal,” or “campaign” are not controlling by themselves.
- Courts must examine whether each post deals with actual government business and whether it was posted in connection with the official’s role.
In other words, a post about district policy or board decisions is treated differently than a post about a family vacation—even if both appear on the same account.
Learn More About Penncrest RTKL Case
To decide whether social media content is an “agency record,” courts (and Right-to-Know Officers) may look at factors such as:
- Account Status: Is the account public or private?
- Official Trappings: Does the account look and function like an official channel (e.g., using a title, district logo, or official contact info)?
- Purpose of the Account: Does the official have a reason related to the office to maintain it (e.g., providing updates on district events)?
- Role of the Author: Do the posts show the official acting in their public role rather than as a private individual?
No single factor controls. The overall question remains: is this post part of government business as defined in the RTKL?
Consult Our PA RTKL Legal Team
How a Court Applied Penncrest: Wyoming Borough v. Boyer
After Penncrest, a case called Wyoming Borough v. Boyer gave a practical example of how this analysis works in real life.
In that case:
- The mayor had a public Facebook page titled “Mayor of Wyoming,” open to anyone.
- The Borough did not run a separate “official” mayor page.
- The court found that the mayor used this page as his primary way of communicating with residents in his role as mayor.
The court then went through the posts and sorted them by topic, deciding which ones were public records and which were not.
Posts the court ordered to be disclosed included things like:
- Updates on corruption investigations and taxpayer spending
- Announcements about emergency parking bans
- Grant information and updates for public services (such as the fire company or Little League)
- Reports about borough investigations and financial audits
- Responses to constituent service requests
- Announcements about council meetings and agenda items
These posts were treated as public records because they clearly involved borough business and were made in the context of the mayor’s official role.
On the other hand, the court allowed the Borough to withhold or exclude:
- Personal photographs and purely social invitations
- Lists of followers that did not document mayoral activity
- Communications protected by attorney-client privilege or covered by non-criminal investigation exemptions
- Certain news articles or headlines that did not themselves function as a record of borough activity
Crucially, the court did not decide that “the entire Facebook page is a public record” or “the entire page is private.” It examined each post, one by one.
Why RTKL Compliance for Social Media is Best Handled by Counsel
While the Penncrest and Boyer cases provide a framework, they do not provide a “bright-line” rule. Every post and comment of an account must be analyzed individually to determine if it meets the statutory definition of a public record.
For Right-to-Know Officers and school administrators, the stakes are high. Misidentifying a personal post as a public record can infringe on an official’s privacy, while incorrectly withholding a record can lead to expensive litigation and bad-faith findings before Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records.
The reality is that social media content is often “gray,” and the law is still evolving. When you receive a request for social media records, the safest course of action is to seek a formal legal review before issuing a final response.
Get a Pennsylvania RTKL Analysis Today
The MBM Law Education legal team and Municipal attorneys have extensive experience navigating the complexities of the Right-to-Know Law. We help agencies across Pennsylvania correctly apply the Penncrest test to ensure transparency while protecting individual privacy.
Contact our team at 412.242.4400 or fill out our contact form to discuss your specific RTKL questions.
Contact MBM Law’s RTKL Lawyers
Ryan C. Thomas is a member of MBM Law’s Education and Municipal teams, with broad experience in public sector law. At MBM Law, he provides counsel to boroughs, townships, school districts, and zoning boards.