need only reflect some form of action by an agency that has an effect upon someone. See, e.g., Vargo v. Department of Corrections, 715 A.2d 1233, 1236 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998); Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Haverford Township, 686 A.2d 56 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996), appeal dismissed, 550 Pa. 343, 705 A.2d 1301 (1998); Travaglia v. Department of Corrections, 699 A.2d 1317, 1320 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 550 Pa. 713, 705 A.2d 1313 (1997). These expansive statements notwithstanding, the Commonwealth Court’s decisions have recognized the definitional limits of the Act. Thus, the Commonwealth Court has acknowledged a range of documents that bear some connection to an agency determination, but nevertheless lack a sufficient nexus to meet the statutory criteria. See, e.g., Aronson, 693 A.2d at 265 (<HOLDING>); Tapco, 695 A.2d at 464-65 (contract proposals
holding that copies of responses to a governmentsponsored prevailing wage survey were not public records under the act holding that municipal court records were admissible under  official records or public documents  exception holding that copies of court records only had to be made available in an agency reading room the agency is not required by statute to mail copies of the records  nor even to provide a requesterconvenient location for access holding that copies of defendants convictions contained in pen packet were admissible under public records exception recognizing that intent of public records act is to provide all citizens with access to the records of all public governmental bodies