Bucks
Open Records
Dear Friends,
Good morning. The state legislature is wrestling with updating its open records law. That’s hardly news. Throughout five decades, state representatives and senators have occasionally addressed expanding public access to meetings. But they quickly send those bills to committee, soon to be forgotten. The last time the legislature came to grips with letting the sunshine into municipal and state legislature meetings was in 1957, 51 years ago.
Over the years, the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association has led the fight to improve the open records law. We in the newspaper craft also know it as the Right to Know Law. Thirty years ago, I was PNA’s President and remember holding six state regional meetings with editors, publishers and legislators. We met in Erie, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, State College, and Scranton.
The meetings weren’t pretty.
At each of them, legislators were openly hostile of us newspaper people. The legislators were not about to let anymore sunshine in. At the time, I was astounded by their bitterness. But I was only 42. What did I know about those wise polls? They obviously didn’t want the public witnessing state and local government business? We tried to convince them that the public had a right to know how state and local governments conducted themselves.
We failed.
Well, believe it or not, the legislature may be on the verge of improving the Right to Know Law. I talked with State Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-10th District) and State Representative Paul Clymer (R-145th) about the prospects for passage.
McIlhinney is an enthusiastic supporter of letting more sunshine in. He voted for Senate Bill 1, which passed unanimously January 30. “If you’re spending tax payers dollars, you must be accountable for it,” he told me. “The Senate Bill is a pretty good way [to strengthen the law].”
Clymer agrees with McIlhinney. “I support the bill,” Clymer began. “We’re in the age of transparency. Openness leads to better government,” he continued. “The more open, the better.”
“The bill fundamentally changes the structure of Pennsylvania’s Right to know Law,” Tim Williams, the President of PNA, writes. “It begins with the presumption that state and local agency records are open for public inspection and places the burden on a government agency denying access. For the first time since 1957, it will include the General Assembly and will give citizens the ability to appeal open records’ disputes to an administrative agency, the Office of Open Records, without the need to file a court action.
“In addition, the Bill makes community colleges subject to the law; shortens agency response times to five business days for all agencies; makes records in the possession of third-party contractors that relate to government functions public; requires state contract information to be available online; and requires state-affiliated universities to make financial information publicly available.” Williams added.
“Pennsylvania’s current open records law is widely regarded as one of the worst in the country,” Williams said. “In a 2002 survey by the Better Government Association, it ranked 48th of the 50 states. But that may be about to change.”
“Both the House and Senate bills would significantly clarify which records are public, providing 12 pages of exceptions for records containing certain personal or security information,” the Associated Press reported (Feb. 3).
House Majority Leader Bill De Weese (D-Greene County) and his Republican counterpart, Sam Smith (R-Jefferson County) said members of their caucuses were concerned that the Senate bill might expose more Pennsylvanians to identity theft.
Those two are blowing smoke.
Addresses and telephone numbers in public records would continue to be available under the bill as they currently are. But Social Security and driver’s license numbers would not.
The Right to Know Law could be overshadowed by Governor Ed Rendell’s annual budget address. As PNA lobbyist Deborah Musselman says, “My greatest fear is that it will be so far on the back burner that it falls off the stove.”
“Is the Bill perfect,” Williams asked? “Of course not. PNA remains concerned about a number of its exceptions, including one that would permit anonymous donations to agencies. Could the Bill be improved? Yes. But does it advance the interests of Pennsylvania citizens? We believe it does.”
I do too.
Sincerely,
Charles Meredith