A court ruling late last month in a long-running, expensive open records case has one side declaring victory, and the other acknowledging a loss and that the case is over.
But nothing may be resolved yet.
The case involves a Northampton County borough and a resident who the borough manager calls “a paper terrorist.”
The resident, Michael Long, has tried for several years to obtain documents from Bath, spurring a flurry of legal filings. Borough Manager Bradford T. Flynn says that has cost the community thousands of dollars in frivolous claims.
The first request in 2022 related to a vacancy on Borough Council.
The borough argues that communications it has had with its legal team that Long is seeking are privileged and confidential, and thus exempt from the state’s Right-to-Know Law. Long appealed the decision to the Office of Open Records, which determined the borough must review the records to see if they contain any “non-exempt factual information.”
The borough appealed, arguing that revealing factual information in the messages would “reveal the content of privileged communications.”
In a ruling June 24, county Judge Brian Panella rejected that appeal, spurring Long to declare victory. Panella ruled, “The Borough must be required to disclose factual information contained within the emails and attachments … but is not required to disclose factual information that would necessarily disclose privileged communications ‘made for the express purpose of obtaining or giving legal advice.’ ”
Panella ordered Bath to review the records for non-confidential information.
“At this time, all the Borough has to do is reexamine the records and extract any ‘purely factual information.’ … Certainly, if the Borough is unable to find a single item of factual information that cannot be disclosed without disclosing privileged communications, then the Borough may turn over nothing.”
That was enough for Long, who said in an email the ruling “is more than a legal win; it’s a clear affirmation of every resident’s right to see what their government is doing behind closed doors.”
But Flynn says the borough’s position is unchanged.
“It was quite the legal exercise for 502 days just to arrive at the same position we were at over a year ago,” he said in an email. “The court is asking the Borough to re-review attorney-client emails for any non-exempt purely factual information (we assume things like ‘Hello’, ‘Sincerely’ and date or time stamps) while redacting anything that would reveal an attorney-client privileged communication. Or, as the court pointed out in its order, turn over nothing if the communications are deemed attorney client privileged. … “]It’s so confusing.”
He lamented the decision left the burden on the borough to determine what is open or not.
“All this does is drive up a small town’s legal costs to perform these reviews,” he said. “It’s leaving this door open to having agencies, like Bath, review attorney-client privilege emails and redact what’s protected, but show the email headings, salutations, and closings. If the email is privileged, then wouldn’t the entire communication be privileged?”
Flynn told Long in a letter July 3 that Bath would not release 20 emails Long sought which are protected by attorney-client privilege. In a separate email dated the same day, he called Long a “paper terrorist” and told him, “You need to get help.”
Bath also believes it has fully complied with Panella’s order and the state open records office.
“We consider the matter closed,” Flynn said.
But Long, who claimed victory over the borough, said he took Panella’s ruling to mean he could go further. He said he plans to go back to court to make Bath provide the documents as well as pursue $20,000 in compensation from the borough for his expenses.
The Open Records office in Harrisburg declined to comment.
Paula Knudsen Burke, attorney for the Pennsylvania chapter of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said it is common for agencies to dispute a records request on receiving documents that involve attorneys.
However, she said the state and courts are clear in past rulings: Just because a lawyer is involved doesn’t mean records are off limits to the public.
“There has to be careful scrutiny on attorney-client privilege and attorney-work product,” Burke said. “On one hand, we can understand that government agencies want to protect sensitive information, but on the other hand, we as taxpayers are footing the bills for lawyers.”
She also said previous court rulings have required agencies to do a detailed review and only hold information that is “totally protected” under the law.
Flynn questioned that aspect. “If there is no question it is privileged, how far do you go?” he said. “And why put a municipality through all those legal gymnastics?
Years of fighting
Flynn described as “protracted” the court challenges due to Long filing “inappropriate” legal filings. In the nearly three years since the saga began, the borough has had to spend $190,590, for an average monthly cost of $5,775, according to the borough.
The yearslong fight began when Long filed his first open records request in September 2022 related to the vacancy on council, which led to the appeal before Panella, according to Flynn. Since that first open-records filing, Long has submitted a multitude of requests on personnel matters, finances and other issues. The borough said he filed four out of nine requests filed by residents thus far in 2025.
Long, who has represented himself through the legal squabble over records, believes he has the right to receive information, including material the borough has deemed to fall under legally protected communications.
“When I put in my original request, and the lawyer told me I was wrong, the Office of Open Records backed it up,” Long said of his initial complaint. “And [the borough] decided to appeal it several times. The judge affirmed the language in my original request.”
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law entitles the public to secure records from public agencies in the state, with some exceptions.
The state Office of Open Records Citizens Guide says, “Agencies are to ensure that citizens are provided access to records to which they are entitled. The records include budget and financial information, wages and more related to a community. Exceptions include personnel or matters that fall under attorney-client privilege.”
But equally important, according to the guide: “Requesters are to use good judgment in seeking records from the public body and not use this law to harass or overburden a public body from performing its other functions.”
Long said he has no plans to back down. “I’m a fighter,” he said.
He acknowledged that his battle has been expensive, but he says he’s not to blame for that:
“This victory comes at a steep price, paid for entirely by the taxpayers of Bath,” he said. “Every hour billed, every motion filed, and every letter written to block transparency was a deliberate choice made by Council members who have now been proven wrong.
“That is why this story does not end here. I am preparing to seek personal surcharges against the officials who authorized this needless, expensive crusade. When elected leaders gamble public money on a legally baseless position in breach of their fiduciary duty, they must be the ones to reimburse the public — period.”
Long’s has had other wins, and losses, over the last two-plus years.
He uncovered that Mayor Fiorella Reginelli-Mirabito and her husband, Council member Manny Mirabito, missed several months of premium payments worth $10,000 on health insurance legally provided to them by the borough. The matter was ultimately resolved, according to Flynn and the mayor, in part with repayment.
He was also sanctioned $1,000 in December by county Judge Abraham P. Kassis, who noted Long’s “frivolous, vexatious and bad faith filing” on various motions related to the council-vacancy documents.
Borough Council President Frank Hesch has tried to play peacemaker with Long.
“Council has a responsibility to look out for the well being of our Borough and taxpayer dollars, which is why we rely on advice from our legal counsel in these matters,” Hesch wrote in an email to Long. “As you are also aware our legal counsel costs us money, and when you copy all three attorneys from different firms on one email we are billed three times, which they have every right to do.”
Hesch’s email continues by hoping both sides can “move on” from the legal back and forth.
“We have tried to be transparent in every request you have made of us,” he said. “I am sorry if you feel otherwise and disagree with that assessment. We have also tried to manage the finances of the Borough in a proper manner.”
Contact Morning Call reporter Anthony Salamone at [email protected].
