CENTER TWP — A Pennsylvania state court, ruling on a Center Township case, ruled unanimously Tuesday that the Office of Open Records has the authority to order a private review of records to decide disputes about access to government documents and information.

A Commonwealth Court panel gave the agency access to legal bills from the township so it can determine whether it would violate attorney-client privilege to make them public.

The case stems from a right-to-know request by former township Supervisor Beverly Schenck, who requested in May 2013 that township officials give her attorney invoices from December 2012 to April 2013.

Township officials responded by giving her a packet with some of the information blacked out.

“I wanted to see what services required the money paid,” Schenck said of her request. “They gave me some of what I requested, but most of it was blacked out.”

Center Township’s attorney Mike Gallagher said the township feels the information is attorney-client privilege.

Gallagher said the township has two bills for his service, one for litigation and one for general services.

The general services information was provided in full, while the description of his services for litigation was blacked out.

“The part that says what I did is redacted,” Gallagher said, adding the cost of the service was disclosed.

Schenck disagreed with the notion the information is attorney-client privilege.

“I pay for that information, as does every other citizen in Center Township,” she said.

Schenck took the request to the state Office of Open Records, which took over the case.

However, the township refused requests by the open records office to turn over the documents for “in camera” review, claiming the office didn’t have the authority to request the information.

Gallagher said the township thinks that courts alone should have the power to determine if information should be made public.

“We’re saying that decision can only be made by the court,” he said. “That’s what judges are for. We don’t need unelected bureaucrats determining what is attorney-client privilege.”

The open records office has been holding the “in camera” reviews, but the new decision said it can take that step when someone requests it without a court giving permission ahead of time.

“In some instances, in camera review may be the only way that an appeals officer can assess, in a meaningful fashion, whether an agency has met its burden of proving that a document is privileged by a preponderance of the evidence,” wrote Judge Patricia McCullough, joined by all six other judges.

Gallagher, said it was too early to know if the township will appeal.

“In my role as an advocate for local governments, I don’t think freedom is served by letting bureaucrats determine what constitutes attorney-client privilege,” he said.

Schenck said she was happy to hear of the court’s ruling.

“The Office of Open Records cannot do its job if it cannot see the documents,” she said Tuesday evening.

She added she did not understand why the township was shielding the information in the first place.

“It makes you wonder what they’re afraid of,” she said.

If the township does not appeal, the open records office will review the documents and determine if they should be public record.

Schenck had a similar case make it to the Commonwealth Court in 2006. At that time the court ruled Schenck did not have the right to view the documents. The State Supreme Court threw out her appeal in 2009.

The Office of Open Records will now have the ability to determine if the information should be made public.

Ed Latuska, chairman of the board of supervisors, said the township will defer all comment on the case to Gallagher.

An attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association said the decision will help people avoid going to court to get access to government records.

“The alternative would be any time an agency claimed the attorney-client privilege — or any other privilege that would necessitate looking at the actual records — they would have to go to court to be able to do it,” said the media group’s attorney, Melissa Melewsky.

Eagle staff writer Will DeShong contributed to this report.