A Gathering Storm
Aug 16th, 2007 by JamieB
In the past few days, newspapers across Pennsylvania have written strong editorials on the subject of open-records reform. Spurred by the Minnesota bridge collapse, the testimony of the state’s secretary of transportation at the recent House committee hearing, and local issues that have affected their communities, editorial writers have reinforced the growing sense that reform must be decisive and far-reaching. What follows are excerpts from editorials from around the state.
• Some bite, please
As Pennsylvania lawmakers attempt to cobble together a new open-records law with some teeth, special interests already are lining up, looking for extractions.
Among requested exemptions: 911 recordings, autopsy reports, salaries of mid- to low-ranking workers at state-related universities and applications for opening casinos. Says committee Chairwoman Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, “We all understand this is a balancing act, and we’re looking to find the right fulcrum.”
Allow us to supply one: It’s the public’s right to know. Pennsylvania’s open-records law is a sorry joke – no less so than the state’s equally impotent Sunshine Law on “public” meetings. Consider the state’s new $27.5 billion general fund budget, essentially hashed out behind closed doors.
Standing up to special interests and self-serving lawmakers is going to take determination – and guts.
• Too much judgment
It was coincidental that barely a week after the Minneapolis bridge disaster a Pennsylvania legislative panel was presented with an example of why our state’s Open Records Law should be changed. Among the records that public agencies believe can be lawfully kept from the public are bridge safety ratings.
Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler told legislators he would release the records, although we doubt if he would have done so without legislative prodding. More interesting, though, was his justification for withholding them: that they might cause undue alarm or breach public security.
“It’s simply a judgment call,” he said.
And that is the whole problem. Access to public documents too often depends only on the “judgment” of particular officials. That is why, for example, you can’t find out how many accidents have occurred at a particular intersection. It’s because their judgment is that such information could be used as evidence in a lawsuit.
The present law covers only a narrow category of documents held by government. That’s one thing that has to be changed.
Absurd reasoning on state bridge reports shows need for more open records
When doing something becomes discretionary under the law, what’s the point of the law? That’s exactly the situation Pennsylvanians who want to get information from state government find themselves in when dealing with the state’s abysmal open records law. Just consider state Transportation Secretary Allen D. Biehler’s testimony before the House State Government Committee last week.
The committee, which is holding hearings on proposed changes to the open records law, called on Mr. Biehler to explain why his department had refused to release bridge safety records to a newspaper. After the I-35W bridge collapse in Minnesota on Aug. 1, there has been considerable interest across the nation about what individual state transportation officials know about the conditions of their bridges. Only in Pennsylvania does sharing that information become optional.
This reasoning was so patently absurd that when Mr. Biehler showed up to testify, he reversed his department’s position. Even though he feared publicizing the ratings might cause alarm (the patronizing ignorance-is-bliss rationale), he has decided to release them. Incredibly he said, ”It’s simply a judgment call. I’d rather err on the side of providing information.”
Making public records public should never be a ”judgment call.” Mr. Biehler’s testimony is proof of why open records reform is so badly needed.
• Bridge open records gap
PennDOT decided to release bridge inspection records that should’ve been public all along.
Access to these records shouldn’t be a gift. It’s the right of every taxpayer – or at least it should be.
Mr. Biehler said he had decided to release the records despite internal agency worries that releasing it would alarm the public.
Wait a minute.
Alarm the public?
You know, sometimes the public needs to be alarmed.
This is not the latest news about Lindsay Lohan or one of the other cele-bimbos that seem to dominate the TV/Web news. This is vital information, information that taxpayers not only deserve but need.
The momentum is there for public records reform. But there are indications that it may not go far enough and that some legislators are backpedaling, trying to retain more government control over what should be public information.
An alarmed - and informed - public would not let that happen.
Reform of Pennsylvania’s open records statutes will depend on how adroit lawmakers are in reaching an acceptable compromise between your right to privacy and your right to transparent government.
It’s not going to be easy. Philadelphia Democrat Babette Josephs, chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, knows it: “We all understand this is a balancing act, and we’re looking to find the right fulcrum.”
Testimony and arguments presented this week at a committee hearing on a new open records bill displayed how difficult reaching a workable compromise will be.
Changing the law is a clear prerequisite to changing attitudes statewide, from township supervisors to borough officials to lawmakers and the state administration.
Too often, individuals once elected to office undergo a sea change of authority that encourages an outmoded paternalism and territorialism regarding what the public should be entitled to, and what should be withheld.
In Pennsylvania, the time has long passed for those attitudes to be dropped, and for transparent government to be the rule.
• Flow of information critical to you
Last month, The Sentinel reported that someone drove onto the Carlisle Fairgrounds July 25 and subsequently died of a gunshot wound. Readers have complained that there’s never been anything more on the story.
If there ever is, it is not likely to be soon – for a couple of reasons. First, thorough police investigations take time and cases can be jeopardized by disclosures of information before they are complete. We respect that.
And second, thanks to Pennsylvania’s Swiss-cheese open records laws, a coroner is pretty free to decide what information to disclose and what to withhold. Cumberland’s coroner has made it very clear to reporters in the past that unless a death is a homicide or accident, he has nothing to say – and he is consistent in his policies.
But as we say time and time again, this issue is not about [the press] wanting to poke our noses into things and create screaming headlines. It’s about the public’s right to know what elected officials and public servants are doing with public tax dollars and how well decisions are being made. It’s about the checks and balances at the heart of our democratic process.