A majority of the state Commonwealth Court apparently believes that public officials are accountable to the public only regarding the official conduct of their agencies.

In a recent decision that should be overturned by the state Supreme Court or rendered obsolete by the Legislature, the court ruled in a way that will allow public officials to hide from public disclosure behind their personal social media accounts, which often are classified more accurately as “unsocial” media.

Prior to the ruling, the Office of Open Records had held that any time a public official comments on public business, that is a public record. It has ruled that the content of the post, rather than whether a public agency controls the posting, is the determining factor in whether it should be considered a public record.

Instead, the Commonwealth Court dove into legislating, the proper business of the Legislature, by establishing a three-part test to determine whether a public officials activity on a private account should become public:

—Whether the account has “public” or “private” status on the social media platform.

—Whether the content of the requested post “prove, support, or evidence a transaction or activity of an agency.”

—Whether the official using the account acts “in their official capacity.”

It’s not hard to imagine a public official acting in an “official capacity” in public — say, to prohibit or limit the availability of drop boxes for mailed ballots for supposed security reasons — and then retreating to a private social media account to revel in limiting voter access for political reasons. The public should know about such cases.

Constituents also should know when a public official posts or reposts or “likes” support for any number of causes not connected to their own specific agencies, because it speaks to their character and, therefore, to their fitness for office.

Courts should be in the business of ensuring public access to information about public officials, not forcing citizens to squeeze through the narrowest possible windows for disclosure.

The decision provides an unwarranted haven from legitimate public inquiry. It should not stand.

— Republican & Herald, Pottsville via TNS