Do Private Citizens Have the Right to Expect That Their Names and Telephone Numbers Would Remain Private When They Call a Council Member ?

In Tribune-Review Publ'g Co. v. Bodack, 875 A.2d 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005), the Court determined that private citizens had a legitimate expectation that their names and telephone numbers would remain private when they called a council member; they did not consent to disclosure, which possibly could impair their reputations or security, and that concern outweighed any public benefit. The Court has conducted its appellate review for whether constitutional rights have been violated, whether an error of law has been committed and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Parsons v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh, 893 A.2d 164 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). Substantial evidence has been defined as such evidence that a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. William Penn School District v. Department of Education, Division of Food and Nutrition, 902 A.2d 583 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).