Apples to Apples
Jul 31st, 2007 by JamieB
There are currently three open-records bills making their way through the legislature: (1) Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware)’s Senate Bill 1; (2) Jim Ferlo (D-Allegheny)’s Senate Bill 765; and (3) Tim Mahoney (D-Fayette)’s House Bill 443.
Each bill is different, and we thought it would be valuable to look at them side by side, so we askeid Teri Henning, the General Counsel of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, to prepare a comparison of the three bills. We will run excerpts from her work over the next few days. Today we begin with some of each bill’s highlights.
We are making this comparison, not only to inform you, but, just as importantly, to foster a conversation about what parts of the bills you like, what parts you want to see strengthened, and what are the critical components of the bill you want to see come out of the legislature and get signed into law by Governor Rendell (we are assuming we will have a bill – and a good one – before his term ends, and this blog intends to do everything it can to make sure that happens).
So, let us know what you think.
Senate Bill 1
Sponsor: Sen. Pileggi
Co-sponsors: Scarnati, Mellow, Orie, Kasunic, Musto, Rafferty, O’pake, Tomlinson, M. White, Erickson, Waugh, Folmer, Costa, Earll, Vance, Boscola, Corman, Wonderling, Gordner, Rhoades, D. White, Pippy, Madigan, Armstrong, Baker, C. Williams, Brubaker, Browne, and Regola
Highlights:
SB 1, as currently written, changes certain aspects of making and responding to open records requests, but does not create a presumption of access to public records. Its primary sponsor, Sen. Pileggi has announced his intention to revise the bill to create this presumption, which is likely to significantly change the bill. This page will be updated when a revised bill is available.
As initially introduced, the most significant changes in SB1 are:
• The inclusion of the legislature (financial records only), the courts (financial records only), state-related universities, and community colleges under the definition of “agency”
• Shortening a state agency’s initial response time to 5 business days (agencies can still get 30-day extensions) (local agencies are already subject to the 5 business day timeframe)
• Creation of open records clearinghouse to hear administrative appeals of denials (not applicable to legislature or courts)
• Increased penalties (1,000 for first offense, 2,000 for subsequent offenses, and $500 per day for violating court order)
Sponsor: Sen. Ferlo
Co-Sponsors: Costa, Rhoades, Stout, Kasunic, Greenleaf, O’Pake, Boscola, Folmer, Fontana, Washington, C. Williams, Wozniak, and Kitchen
Highlights:
SB765 is a substantial revision to the current open records law. It begins with the presumption of access to agency records and lists 20 categories of exemptions, including records that are confidential by law, records that would threaten public safety, and records that would disclose ongoing police investigations.
SB765 also creates an Office of Access to hear administrative appeals of records denials and limits fees that agencies can charge for access/copies.
Sponsor: Rep. Mahoney
Co-sponsors: King, Depasquale, Barrar, Bastian, Caltagirone, Carroll, Creighton, Dally, Freeman, Galloway, George, Gergely, Gibbons, Goodman, Harhai, Harkins, Hornaman, Josephs, Kortz, Kotik, Kula, Manderino, Markosek, Mcilhattan, Melio, M. O’Brien, Pallone, Petrarca, Readshaw, Roae, Saylor, Seip, Siptroth, Staback, Tangretti, Walko, J. White, Youngblood, Solobay, Daley, Lentz, Hutchinson, Yudichak, Pyle, R. Stevenson, M. Smith, and Swanger
Highlights: HB443 is a substantial revision to the current open records law. It begins with the presumption of access to agency records and lists 24 categories of exemptions, including records that are confidential by law, records that would threaten public safety, and records that would disclose ongoing police investigations. The bill also exempts most “e-mail” from the definition of “public record.”
HB443 limits fees agencies can charge for access and creates an Office of Access to hear administrative appeals of records denials. It also requires the Office of Access to handle all records requests for state agencies (which could cause delays), increases to 20 days the time period for a state agency to respond to an initial request, and penalizes “commercial use” of public records.