passopenrecords.org

What are they doing? What are they saying? Who is saying what? Why are they saying what they are saying and doing what they are doing?

I don’t know, but with Bill DeWeese and Vince Fumo beating the drum for open records reform, with the Black Caucus walking out just before a vote was to be taken on open records, with the House gutting one bill then taking the Senate’s bill and threatening to “strip it” and put in language of its own, with Joe Paterno’s salary no longer a state secret, the Capitol is in seeming chaos over open records.

Well, at least the issue seems to have people’s attention . . . and we are told that the whole thing will be sorted out . . . and signed into law before Christmas. What that “thing” will look like is still anybody’s guess.

But here are some of the things people are saying . . .

Stay tuned for what they are actually going to do.

• First, Pennsylvania House members took pending open-records legislation and made Swiss cheese of it. Then, in one day, the Democrat leadership attempted to slam through a new proposal with limited debate.

Democrat leaders backed off after the rush to “reform” ran afoul of rule changes designed to prevent hasty action on important legislation.

On Wednesday, the state Senate overwhelmingly passed its version of the legislation, which doesn’t go far enough in giving access to legislative affairs.

Having sustained, for decades, one of the most ridiculous open-records laws in the nation, lawmakers suddenly are committed to popping out a new law pronto. And as they stumble over themselves to do so, there’s a white-hot state investigation into suspect bonus payments for staffers, the firing of some key personnel and reports of legislative document shredding.

Pennsylvanians deserve better than this.

• “It bothers me that people have to know what I make,” Joe Paterno told reporters. “What difference does it make what I make, all right? I don’t know what you guys make.”

• “Neither [the House or Senate bills] are A-list bills at this point. They’re still flawed,” said Barry L. Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania. But, he said, “I keep hoping - always an optimist - that we’ll get a bill that other states look at as the model.”

• An open records bill passed by the state Senate would end Pennsylvania’s status as having the worst public records law in the land.

It would not, however, be the best open records law in the land because it still would treat the state Legislature as a separate entity rather than as a fully accessible branch of the government.

The scandal-plagued Legislature would be doing itself a favor by creating a culture of transparency.

• Paterno’s salary was one of the best-kept secrets in Pennsylvania, a state where keeping the public in the dark is one of the primary missions of government. . . .How much the 80-year-old coach makes isn’t as important as the fact that so many government and university officials worked so hard for so long to keep the information out of public sight.

• State Sen. Jim Ferlo said Tuesday he voted against an open records provision because it fails to put the Legislature under the Right to Know law.

“To me it is a shell of a bill,” said Ferlo, D-Highland Park.

• [The state Senate voted 49-1 for a bill to strengthen Pennsylvania’s open records law.]

The only vote against the bill was cast by Sen. Vincent J. Fumo, D-Philadelphia, who wanted it to provide the same broader access to the Legislature’s records as it does to records of the state’s executive branch and local governments.

“He thinks that if you’re going to have an open records law, it should apply across the board,” said Fumo’s spokesman, Gary Tuma.

• In a surprise move Monday, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Senate bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Delaware County Republican, rather than a House version offered by freshman Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Uniontown, who has championed open records reform.

House Republicans blasted the move by Democrats to call up the Senate bill on short notice.

Rep. Craig Dalley, R-Northampton County, claimed that ramming the bill through committee was “perverting the legislative process.” Rep. Doug Reichley, R-Allentown, said Republicans received the bill less than an hour before the vote.

• The Senate bill’s sponsor, Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, rejected criticism that it does not go far enough, saying it compares favorably with the strongest laws in other states and upholds the spirit of making government more open.

”The Senate of Pennsylvania can be proud of what we are doing today,” Pileggi said in his floor comments. ”Reform may very well have been the word uttered most often in this building over the past year. There is no other reform that comes close to matching the impact of a strong open records law.”

• House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese said Monday night that he wants to send Gov. Ed Rendell a bill next week that would give Pennsylvania residents more access to government documents.

DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, announced that goal after a clash between Republicans and Democrats during a House Appropriations Committee.

The dispute occurred over the Democrats’ new procedural strategy of placing open records legislation on a fast track to a full House vote.

House Democrats and government watchdogs believe the House bill is stronger because it would presume legislative records are available to the public.

However, Republicans on the appropriations committee complained that Democrats were rushing to pass a complex bill without public hearings and no debate in committee.

Rep. Scott Petri, a Bucks County Republican, said he found out about the Democrats’ plan to vote on an open records bill five minutes before the committee meeting started.

“If that’s reform, then I’m not for reform,” Petri said. “That’s not what the people of this state want. They should expect a place where the light of day should be shined on this bill.”

DeWeese accused House Republicans of engaging in a bit of mischief aimed at blocking swift passage of a major haul to the state’s 50-year-old Right to Know Law.

“We are attempting to send an open records bill to Gov. Rendell’s capacious desk by next Wednesday night,” he said. “This language has been looked at ad infinitum in the light of day. We are going to forge ahead. We have our shoulder to the wheel.”

• Several members of the state House’s Legislative Black Caucus walked out of session Wednesday just as a vote was to take place on an overhaul of the state’s open records law.

Rep. Curtis Thomas, D-Philadelphia, one of the lawmakers to request leave for the day, told Capitolwire that the lawmakers were withholding their votes on the open records bill until they received assurances that gun-control bills would move.

“Life over death is more important than open records right now,” Thomas said.

• The truth is that most of those involved in the discussion on open records seem to have little understanding of the role computing should play in providing access to government records. Today, computer storage is so plentiful and inexpensive that for purposes of this discussion, it might as well be considered free and infinite. It is far less expensive than paper. All government records should be stored permanently (indefinitely) on electronic media. There is no logical reason to ever delete an accurate government record. In addition, when a record is deemed public, the cost-effective path is to simply post it on the Internet in a document database with a capable search engine.

• Please associate me with Gordon’s comments on our legislators’ computer literacy. The debate on open records seems to be going on as though the constitutional convention in Philly were still in session. The quill is gone and the computer has replaced it. But our laws haven’t kept pace with our technology. Put it on the Internet with a search engine and let the chips fall where they will. Unfortunately our legislators do know enough about technology to avoid such a transparent environment. And that is why we do need a revision to the current open records law. And that is why the revision needs to be crafted with today’s technology as Gordon as so well articulated.