passopenrecords.org

“A Pennsylvania House Committee Wednesday night approved a bill that would overhaul the state’s open records law over protests about last-minute revisions. . . .

“In the end, a Pennsylvania Newspaper Association representative said the constituent privacy protections in the bill approved by the committee, effectively make the measure a step backward.”

The measure is a step backward, but not because of privacy protections. You do not have to choose between an individual’s right to privacy and this Commonwealth’s glaring need for transparent government. The two are not in conflict, and the problem with the bill that was reported out of the House State Government Committee on Wednesday night has nothing to do with individual privacy and everything to do with governmental secrecy.

Let’s be clear: We are talking about public records that deal with public expenditures, public issues and public accountability. Pennsylvania’s voters have made it crystal clear that they have lost trust in their government over these matters, and their representatives say they have heard them.

In a recent interview for this blog, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi said, “I’ve noticed in the last several years an increasing degree of . . . cynicism and distrust of state government and local government . . . and part of that has been focused on the way we conduct our business – that it is not a transparent, open process that people can easily access and follow, if they care to. . . .That almost presumption that there is something being done out of sight is not good. . . .The applicability of that to open records seems clear to me.”

That’s the issue . . . and we must not let others define it for us. Take emails, for example. We have been told, “Oh, we can’t make those subject to the open records law because we communicate with our constituents by email.” They also communicate by letter, telephone, marching in parades, bringing WAMs back to their districts and writing op-ed pieces in their local newspapers. Are all these things therefore off limits? And let’s be clear about something else, lawmakers communicate with their constituents about private matters that should remain private – and they communicate about public matters that should be out in the open.

It’s not the format of the communication that counts. It’s the content. There are matters of private communication whose confidentiality should be honored. And there are matters of public business that should be, well, public. Why is this concept so difficult? I mean, there is a reason we call them public servants.

Of course, there will always be areas of dispute. That’s where the conversation needs to take place. Now that the presumption that public records belong to the public – a presumption, remember, that was controversial until a few months ago – is now broadly accepted in the legislature, let’s talk about exemptions that are clear, specific, necessary and few, instead of seeking to exempt sprawling categories and entire methods of communication.

A commitment to openness is what we hear coming from our legislators.* Why can’t we see it coming in their legislation?

* “It’s the people’s government. “To me that means people shouldn’t have to bear the burden of proving that certain records are public” (Sen. Andrew Dinniman).

* “We have to put the trust back in Harrisburg. We, the people in Harrisburg, we need to be statesmen, not politicians” (Rep. Tim Mahoney).

* “Providing access to public records is one of the fundamental duties of public officials” (Sen. Jim Ferlo).