passopenrecords.org

As the end of January approaches — and with it the promise of an open records bill on Gov. Ed Rendell’s desk — there appears to be broad agreement in the legislature on the fundamental principles of reform, but there are still some important differences over the details. We need to continue to push hard for changes we believe are critical, but we should be encouraged by the progress we have made over the last twelve months.

In a letter to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Chester) has taken issue with an earlir letter from Rep. Bryan Lentz (D-Delaware) that appeared in the Delaware County Daily Times and also on this site.

While the letters focus on differences between the two versions of the bill, it is heartening to see both men so openly committed to meaningful reform on this issue. Sen. Pileggi has been pushing this legislation for more than a year, and he has proved a thoughtful proponent, one who has been willing to listen and to change his views based on better arguments . . . something he did most notably last spring when he switched his previous stance and came out in support of “flipping the presumption,” which is the single most important change – and is now accepted by virtually everyone in the legislature – in the proposed legislation. The presumption that public records belong to the public is the backbone of open records reform.

In this letter (below), Pileggi takes issue with the House’s insertion of language to make citizens pay for a “legal review” to determine if a record is public and with a provision that would prohibit people from getting public records if they have failed to pay a fee – even one time and even if that fee is a matter of dispute.

“A Jan. 11 commentary, ‘Pa. House takes lead on open records,’ by State Rep. Bryan Lentz about my legislation to strengthen Pennsylvania’s Open Records Law, warrants clarification.

“Lentz’s claim that the Senate-passed bill ‘contained numerous exceptions and loopholes’ is misleading at best. The Senate-passed bill contained fewer exceptions than the version passed by the House.

“While open-government advocates say some of the House amendments to S.B. 1 strengthened the legislation, they also point out that others seriously weakened it. For example, the House’s language permits agencies to make citizens pay for a “legal review” to determine if a record is public. It is not hard to envision “legal review” costs that quickly add up to thousands of dollars if an agency doesn’t want to release a particular record. Also, the House version would allow an agency to forever prohibit an individual from accessing public records for failing to pay even a nominal copying fee one time.

“I appreciate Rep. Lentz’s support of my efforts to rewrite Pennsylvania’s 50-year-old Open Records Law. I expect that the Senate will agree to numerous changes made by the House. However, we will not agree to any amendment such as the two described above that would severely limit citizen access to public records.”

On both those matters, Senator Pileggi is right.

Kori Walter of the Beaver County Times reports that both houses of the legislature claim to want closure on an open records bill by the end of this month:

• “Majority Leader DeWeese remains committed that an agreement on the open-records bill will be reached between the chambers and sent to the governor in the coming weeks,” said Tom Andrews, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D-Greene).

• “Both chambers agree that we should do everything possible to send a bill to the governor the week of Jan. 28,” said Erik Arneson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Chester). “We are planning to vote on the bill . . . that week.”

Some issues remain between the two bodies, such as which state agency should oversee records requests: the Senate favored the Department of Economic and Community Development because of its familiarity with local government issues, while the House is pushing for the Ethics Commission to reduce political pressures.

And some issues remain unresolved in the eyes of interested outsiders. Deborah Musselman, a lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Newspapers Association, pointed to:

• Public access to county coroners’ autopsy reports; and

• Arbitration awards in public school teacher contract negotiations.

Both are deemed public records under current law, but the House blocked autopsy reports when it sent Senate Bill 1 back to the Senate last month, and the Pennsylvania State Education Association is working the halls of Harrisburg to keep arbitration awards and proceedings private.

“This shows that this (legislation) isn’t just about journalists wanting to write stories,” Musselman told Walter. “It’s about accountability. If you are an elected official, we don’t see why the public doesn’t have the right to know how well you are doing your job.”