What’s the matter with HB 443?
Nov 6th, 2007 by JamieB
Let’s see — where to begin?
The correct multiple choice answer is, “plenty.” The short essay answer:
When Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fayette) introduced House Bill 443, it seemed like a great start. And it was, but unfortunately the bill that came out of the State Government Committee and went to the floor of the House, trailing 77 amendments in its wake, doesn’t look much like the bill that went in. And it is a big step in the wrong direction. I guess this is what they mean when they compare making legislation and making sausage.
HB 443 would actually allow the public less access to public records than we have today. It contains a number of overly broad and subjective provisions that would enable agencies to slam the door on records that are open now, and it would create blanket exemptions for a good deal of agency correspondence and all e-mail.
That’s right – ALL email, regardless of what’s in it. This provision, which, by the way, passed overwhelmingly, would make this state unique in the nation. Just after Pennsylvania had clawed its way back from 48th to a seven-way tie for 17th place in the open-records-access derby – although it still got a grade of F – our state would be heading back to the bottom. And it wouldn’t stop at 48th place – because right now 49 state laws either specifically provide for access to e-mail or do not differentiate between e-mail and paper records. Only Rhode Island protects certain constituent e-mail. Pennsylvania, under SB 443, would “protect” it all. Our state law currently does not differentiate between email and paper, presumably on the reasonable premise that it is the content – not the format – of the communication that matters. So this provision would be a double giant step backward for Pennsylvania – it would give the public less access than it has now and it would make the state the least transparent in the nation. How low can we go? I’m guessing 50th, 51st if you count the District of Columbia.
Rep. Babette Josephs (D-Philadelphia) introduced an amendment to remove the e-mail exemptions. It lost 127 to 69. That is almost 2-1.See how your representative voted.
HB 443 would also create a blanket exemption – known as a privilege – for “all communications between a legislator and constituent and all documents related to that communication.” Clearly, there are communications between representatives and their constituents that should be private. But this exemption would effectively bar access to financial records or agency decisions affecting the public if the information requested related in any way to constituent correspondence. These guys are painting with a pretty broad brush.
Likewise, the bill would create a blanket exemption for “correspondence and related records by and among a public official, a public official’s staff and an agency.” Again, this broadside could prevent access to financial records and records of agency decisions.
Finally, for now, the bill would exempt internal performance audits. These audits are paid for with public money and disclose inefficiencies or problems in public offices. It’s hard to imagine why the public is not entitled to know how its money is being spent – or misspent.
More on HB 443 this week. Just remember: with open records in this state, the only thing worse than standing still is going backward.