Section 708: Exceptions
Jan 23rd, 2008 by JamieB
We continue with the discussion of our concerns with specific items in the current version of Senate Bill 1, which the House amended and sent back last December, and which the Senate (we hope) is planning to vote on by the end of this month.
As you might expect, Section 708, which lays out the “Exceptions to public records,” is one of the longest sections in the entire bill, running to more than 11 pages.
A couple of things worth noting:
• The House made two important additions to Section 708 (a), which addresses the Burden of Proof. Expanding the Senate’s requirement that state and local agencies shoulder the burden of proving that a record is exempt from public access, the House added specific requirements that legislative and judicial agencies do likewise (p. 23).
While this may seem redundant – and it must be read in light of the long list of exceptions that follow – it reinforces the presumption that public records belong to the public – a presumption that, if this legislation is passed, will be part of Pennsylvania law for the first time at least since Benjamin Franklin.
• However, let’s take a look at the 28th and last exception on the long list of exceptions. Section 708 (b)(28)(iii) on page 33, which was added in its entirety by the House, exempts any record “identifying a person that (sic) requests assistance or constituent services from a member of the general assembly.”
We all knew this was coming, and while the desire to protect communications with constituents is understandable, whoever came up with this language was painting with an awfully broad brush. The way I read it, any correspondence in which anyone asks for a favor, a service or a job is no longer open to the possibility of public scrutiny. Does this mean that a developer or contractor who seeks favorable treatment is in a privileged position? What about a family member seeking a job? Or corporations, which are defined as persons under the law – are they now exempt?
This language is simply too broad, and it is actually more restrictive than current law. It needs to be reworded to protect the privacy of private citizens without compromising the openness of public records.