passopenrecords.org

Around the state and across the country, people are watching closely what both the House and the Senate will do to open records this week.

Good open records / e-mail thinking in Ohio

There’s a move afoot in Ohio to clarify that private e-mail accounts are unsuitable for government work.

By “private e-mail accounts”, what they’re getting at is when a government official or employee signs into a private e-mail account (hotmail, yahoo, gmail, RNC, etc.) to send and receive e-mails, rather than using his or her official government e-mail address.

Ohio’s state legislature convened a 22-member committee to examine the state of the state’s open records and public documents access.

One of the panel’s recommendations is that e-mails sent or received “in the course of public business should be treated consistently under existing public records laws and court decisions.”

Sen. David Goodman said: “We want to make sure nobody is gaming the process by doing public work on private devices.”

He added: “It’s a very sensitive area because technology is changing every day. But the general idea is if you’re doing public work, it’s a public record no matter what device you use.”

Goodman and other proponents of this wise new recommendation say they’d like to see it made official as a law.

Compare this sunlight sanity to what just happened in neighboring Pennsylvania, where a legislative committee voted to exclude all e-mail from public scrutiny, even e-mail written on government computers.

Next Week: Open Records or Secret Records?

It’s too easy (and therefore wrong) to say that next week will be historic. But it will be important, so now’s the time for interested citizens to weigh in.

Both the House and Senate may act to improve PA’s standing as having the 3rd worst open records in America. Or they may not. While neither chamber will consider a best-in-America proposal, there’s still time to amend both bills to achieve that goal.

In the Senate. On Monday the 29th, the Senate State Government Committee will take up amendments to Senate Bill 1 and vote whether to send it to the full Senate or kill it. Authored by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, SB 1 is the premiere proposal so far - or at least it will be if the committee approves amendments. Through Sen. Jake Corman, R-Centre, Pileggi is offering an omnibus amendment that will, among other things:

• “Flip the presumption.” That is, it will presume that public records are open unless they are specifically exempted. Currently, public records are presumed secret unless a citizen can prove they should be open.
• Include some legislative records, but not apply the presumption of openness to them.
• Include some judicial records. Currently, PA’s courts have exempted themselves from the open records law.
• Create a single “clearinghouse” to supervise compliance with the law by state and local officials.
• Set limits on fees that agencies can charge for records.
• Require agencies to provide public documents within five business days of the request.

State Government Committee Chairman Jeff Piccola, R-Dauphin, will offer some key amendments that:

• “Flip the presumption” for legislative records.
• Require the release of information about WAMs (Walking Around Money) that legislators pass out to pet projects in their districts. This year’s budget includes at least $360 million in WAMs.
• Require (not merely permit) courts to award attorney fees and costs to plaintiffs that have to go to court to obtain public records. Courts also could make plaintiffs pay the fees and costs of government agencies if requests are found to be frivolous.

Here’s how a non-partisan group of integrity advocates see the situation in the Senate.

Senators on the State Government Committee who vote against these amendments and the bill itself will have, in the immortal words of Desi Arnaz, “a lot of splainin’ to do.”

If the amended SB 1 passes the State Government Committee, it most likely will be recommitted to the Appropriations Committee to estimate how much it will cost to implement. Senators on that committee can offer other amendments to bring the bill up to best-in-America standards.

In the House. On Friday, House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, promised “several hours and possibly a few days of debate” next week on House Bill 443. DeWeese promised not to use the “gut-and-run” procedure common to most important legislation but to allow debate on every amendment Representatives offer.

Given the recent history of the House - refusing even to consider a proposal to reduce the size of the legislature (click here for the roll call vote) and defeating a proposal to prepare for a Constitution convention (click here for the roll call vote) - integrity advocates are not expecting much.

The debate will begin with a version of HB 443 that emerged from the House State Government Committee on October 17 and that some believe is even worse than the law PA has now. “This bill creates exemptions that are so large that there’s not much left of the presumption-of-access,” Jamie Blaine told Calkins Group Capitol Reporter Kori Walter. Blaine, a former newspaper publisher, edits the blog passopenrecords.org.

Currently HB 443:

• “Flips the presumption” (but includes so many exceptions that it may not matter).
• Does not cover the judiciary (an indefensible position from a citizen perspective)
• Exempts email (which is like exempting paper).
• Allows agencies to take 20 business days to respond to requests (perhaps the longest waiting period in America).
• Creates a Public Records Office in the State Ethics Commission (but the head of the office would be a political appointee of the governor, thereby creating a conflict of interest).
• Only allows access to documents created in the future, denying access to documents that already exist (dubbed the “cover-up provision” by DR’s Tim Potts)

Moment of Truth. After more than two years of talking about reform, this is a moment of truth. Will lawmakers use the power we give them for our benefit? Or will they continue to abuse that power for their own benefit?