passopenrecords.org

1. Politics makes strange bedfellows. The Pennsylvania Association of Township Supervisors and the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association are both publicly calling for the enactment of the version Senate Bill 1 that the Senate unanimously approved on January 30th. That seemed highly unlikely during the past year, as the open-records bill went through an arduous evolution – with PNA consistently calling for more openness and the expansion of public access, while PSATS expressed its concerns about burdening local officials and safeguarding constituents’ privacy.

Neither organization argues that it got everything it wanted in the current incarnation of SB 1, but each has expressed satisfaction with the process and with its ability to participate, to be heard and to be taken seriously. In the end, both Doug Hill, the executive director of PSATS, and Tim Williams, the president of PNA, argued that the pros outweighed the cons, and both endorsed the bill.

2. Be careful what you wish for. Meanwhile, others from all across the political spectrum are lining up to have one more whack at SB 1 when the House takes it up again this week. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that even the time table is now in doubt – just two days after both the Speaker, Dennis O’Brien (R-Philadelphia), and the Majority Leader, Bill DeWeese (D-Greene), indicated the House would take up the bill on Wednesday, following Gov. Ed Rendell’s budget address tomorrow, and DeWeese predicted that passage would follow soon thereafter.

Pointing to “several critical flaws” in the bill, Barry Kauffman, the executive director of Common Cause, has urged the legislature to “stick with the job until they get it right this time” – words that were almost identical to those used by Speaker O’Brien at the PNA Government Affairs conference last week.

Among the flaws Kauffman cited are: (a) not having the legislature subject to the proposed Office of Open Records; (b) the questionable independence of the Office of Open Records in any event, since it would be under of Department of Community and Economic Development, which Kauffman fears would favor government agencies over private citizens; and (c) the danger that “nuisance fees” will be used to prevent true public access.

On the other hand, House Republicans are raising questions about how SB 1 treats such matters as: (a) 911 emergency call transcripts; (b) privacy issues and identity theft; and (c) correspondence from constituents.

SB 1 is not a perfect bill. But it is far better than anything this state has had before. There are things that I wish were different – access to autopsy records, for example, as well as the issues raised by Common Cause – but my worry is that, if we insist on reopening the process so we can try to get all the changes we want, the whole thing may unravel . . . and there are more than enough interest groups that would love to see that happen.

The process to date has led to significant improvements in the bill: the House applied the presumption — and the same burden of proof as for local agencies — to legislative records and financial records of the judiciary; the Senate removed the exemption on birth dates that the House had imposed; and the law does apply to past records. So, yes, let’s push for all the improvements we can get, if there us a chance to get them. But remember . . .

sometimes, as Voltaire said:

3. The perfect is the enemy of the good.