District — namely, the press’s “unique role and interest in observing government activity in our democracy” insofar as it is charged with disseminating information to and educating the public — PG Publishing has standing to maintain this action. 604 A.2d at 1225. III. Next, PDE asserts that PG Publishing has failed to establish a right to relief under the RTKL because agencies have no duty under the RTKL to retain records for any period of time. It points to Section 507 of the RTKL providing that “Nothing in this act shall be construed to modify, rescind or supersede any record retention policy or disposition schedule of an agency established pursuant to law, regulation, policy or other directive.” 65 P.S. § 67.507; see also Paint Township v. Clark, 109 A.3d 796, 808 (Pa.Cmwlth.2015) (<HOLDING>). In short, just as Section 705 of the RTKL, 65
holding that material submitted by appellant that is cumulative of evidence previously of record is not new holding that a postconviction claim that is refuted by the record is without merit holding that record retention was not modified by and is expressly recognized by the rtkl holding that review of a partial and truncated record by the district court was error and case remanded for review on the entire administrative record holding that state liability only accrues as expressly authorized by law