passopenrecords.org

First, the good news. The 24-member Speaker’s Commission on Legislative Reform unanimously voted to recommend expanding the definition of a “public record” to make most government records available to the public. The commission, also unanimously, recommended that the state legislature, which is exempt under the current law, be subject to right-to-know jurisdiction. Moreover, commission members recognized that its non-binding proposals aren’t much good unless they actually get enacted into law.

“We’ve done really good work,” said panel member Rep. Greg Vitali (D-Delaware). “but those hours will not have been well spent unless we get open records reform and unless we get campaign-finance reform. We should not view our work as a success if it isn’t enacted into law.”

And that brings us to the not-so-good news. Even with an expanded definition of open records and a “flip” of the 50-year presumption that those records belong to the government rather than the people, it is not yet clear what the list of exceptions that will be part of any new law will look like. The commission voted unanimously to exempt “personal communications,” although no one seems to know exactly what that term might encompass. Likewise, the members turned back a proposal for an office of public access, although they did call for an as-yet-undefined appeals process.

Moreover, the legislative term ends at the end of this month, and the lawmakers still have a lot left to do, including approving the budget. So it is looking increasingly unlikely that a reform package will be passed and signed in this session.

Do the legislators hope that public scrutiny will abate during the hot summer recess? Undoubtedly some do. Will the special interest groups use this time to apply their special mix of the strong arm and the glad hand? Without question.

But this issue is not going away. There are too many legislators who recognize its importance. There is a public that insists on reform. And the intensity of press coverage is unprecedented.

But as panel member Tim Mahoney (D-South Union) said, “A lot of people think this was media-driven, but it’s not. It’s taxpayer-driven. Taxpayers want to know how their money is spent.”

****************************************************************************

It’s not clear whether Penn State’s president, Graham Spanier, is trying to torpedo open records reform in general or just trying to get the university exempted completely. What is clear is that his response has attracted attention well beyond Harrisburg and Happy Valley.

President “Graham Spanier . . . says that if Pennsylvania beefs up its open records law, Penn State will become less competitive with similar research-oriented universities in other states.

Following President Spanier’s line of reasoning, we should expect that Alabama and South Dakota – the only two states with worse laws than Pennsylvania – should have the most competitive research universities in the country.”

“The public is entitled to know how the university makes use of the funds provided by the commonwealth.”

What exactly is there to argue about in this? You either accept state funds and go by the law, or you do not accept state funds to avoid full open records provisions.