On the sidelines and in the dark
May 21st, 2007 by JamieB
A couple of reports from around the state last week:
One from the Lock Haven Express:
Public records should be open to scrutiny
Keeping public records open to the citizens and the press has long been an issue for us and newspapers nationwide.
It is truly the only way the public, and the media, are to act as watchdogs over our government.
One more small step toward that effort came Monday with an order issued by the state Supreme Court formalizing that court’s stance governing public access to its financial and related administrative records.
The order establishes a process for requesting and accessing state court system records that deal with the use of public funds, including the purchase of services, supplies or equipment. The rule takes effect on July 1.
“We have a continuing interest in making both case information and financial records available to Pennsylvania’s citizens,” Chief Justice Ralph Cappy said while announcing the order. “For decades we have followed a policy that has made those records readily available for review. Members of the media, especially, have routinely inspected these records and have periodically noted our commitment to accessibility. Today, we simply formalize an important principle that we have consistently applied in practice.”
While the newspaper praised the courts actions, it also noted that much more needs to be done, citing the following evidence:
• A 2002 survey by the government watchdog group, Better Government Association, ranked Pennsylvania’s open records environment 48th out of the 50 states.
• The Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency spent $862,000 on board retreats over a five-year period, yet fought a long and expensive court battle (which it eventually lost) to keep the expense details private.
• Penn State University has fought to keep the salary of football coach Joe Paterno private, despite the fact that Paterno participates in the State Employees’ Retirement System and the university receives millions in state funding each year.
• In 2005 and 2006, Pennsylvania legislators paid $3.6 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses to legislative staffers. These payments were not previously disclosed because the General Assembly has exempted itself from the state’s open records law and did not release the information until recently.
Read the entire article.
Last Monday the Harrisburg Patriot News editorialized:
Fact finder’s report, like tentative teachers’ pact, should be open to public inspection, comment
Essentially, the editorial recognized that school board/teacher union contract negotiations require “tedious give-and-take” and need to be conducted in private if they are going to succeed. Yet it also called for any proposed contract to be on public display for a reasonable period of time (”10-15 days).
Why?
“Taxpayers should have an opportunity to hear the findings and express their views to their elected representatives. They are significant stakeholders and shouldn’t be kept on the periphery.”
Those two sentences really capture the nub of so much of the current argument over open records: Lack of public disclosure keeps not only the taxpayers but all the residents of the Commonwealth on the sidelines and in the dark. It treats us as if we were subjects rather than citizens and patronizes us by suggesting that our access to public records is a privilege to be extended, rather than a right to be upheld.
And that, it seems to me, is exactly what the people who have sent us their stories are also saying: We should not have to jump through hoops, plead our cause or be publicly humiliated when we ask for public information which we have the right to know.