More Views on SB 1
Feb 8th, 2008 by JamieB
We continue our series on opinions from around Pennsylvania about Senate Bill 1 with excerpts from recent editorials in the Harrisburg Patriot-News, Philadelphia Inquirer, Centre Daily Times and Lewistown Sentinel. Please join the conversation.
• Public access is good government
Pass open records law
The latest Senate-backed version of a new open records law for Pennsylvania still contains a few flaws that, in a perfect world, would be debated, challenged and corrected. But since the Legislature is nearing agreement on updating the state’s rusty, 51-year-old Right to Know statute – and given the potential for this discussion to break down between the two houses yet again – we urge the House of Representatives to adopt the Senate bill and send it to Gov. Ed Rendell for his signature.
What’s not up to snuff? A few things.
The Senate bill would place a proposed Office of Open Records — the clearinghouse for interpreting the law and resolving disputes over requests – in the Department of Community and Economic Development, where it might be less impervious to political influence than in an independent agency such as the state Ethics Commission.
Second, there’s still the potential that state, county and municipal records tenders could establish nuisance-type fees, such as unreasonable costs for researching and gathering records, to dissuade people from making inquiries.
Third, the new law would go backward in one respect – removing autopsy records from the public domain.
Despite these obstacles, the proposed bill makes several inroads. The most important is a reversal in the presumption of openness. Officials would be required to show why a record can’t be released, using a specific list of exceptions. Right now the onus is on a resident or news organization to prove that a record is, in fact, public.
The law would allow exemptions for police investigative reports, home and personal cell-phone numbers, medical records and Social Security numbers to protect privacy and to protect against identity theft. Letters to elected officials from constituents also would be shielded.
It’s tempting to say the House and Senate should hold off until they can agree on a bill that would become a paragon of transparency in government, but history is replete with examples of good ideas getting bogged down in political bickering, power plays by legislative leaders and behind-the-scenes maneuvering. You know, all those things that open records and open meeting laws are designed to deter.
It’s time to move ahead. Even with quick action, a new law wouldn’t go into effect until Jan. 1, 2009. Most other states have already demonstrated that with stronger laws and some training for municipal officials, wider public access to records is doable.
And it’s good government.
The open-records bill that could come up for a final vote today in Harrisburg isn’t perfect, but it is a significant improvement over current law. Legislators should send it to Gov. Rendell for his signature.
The title of Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, approved in 1957, turned out to be a misnomer. Government documents are presumed to be off-limits to the public; the burden is on an ordinary citizen to prove why such records should be open.
The new legislation places the burden on government officials to explain why some records should be kept secret. That feature of the new bill trumps the legislation’s shortcomings.
The bill would create a new Open Records Office, but - in one of the bill’s most serious drawbacks - the legislature would not come under that office’s jurisdiction. The House and Senate would instead decide for themselves whether they are in compliance.
Both chambers would appoint an “appeals officer” to rule on requests for government documents; those officers would sometimes be under enormous political pressure to side with the legislature.
We wish legislators had the courage to put this decision-making role in the hands of someone outside their direct influence. But the larger point is that this legislation would, for the first time, put the legislature under the scope of the open-records law.
Another shortcoming is that legislators decided to put the new Open Records Office in the Department of Community and Economic Development, part of the governor’s administration.
It should be under the domain of the state Ethics Commission, where it would more likely be free of political interference.
Some proponents of a stronger bill want to go back to the drawing board. But doing that might allow special interests to add more loopholes. The bill before the legislature now is a big step forward for Pennsylvania.
Now that the state Senate has passed its version of an open-records law, the matter goes back to the House, where debate over property-tax cuts stalled this week in a dispute over how many homeowners should benefit.
No one knows when the right-to-know bill will be reconsidered or what its fate will be. But while Senators praise themselves for this sudden spasm of reform — and in fairness, their bill is a vast improvement over the one previously approved by the House — remember this: The process has already taken a year, nothing has changed and even if the Senate bill does become law, it won’t take effect until next January.
But no need to rush reform, right? Almost every senator and representative, thanks to politician-drawn voting districts, has a safe seat, and as long as they appear to be working for open records — issue enough news releases to that effect and it will eventually seep into voters’ collective subconscious — they can always clean up the little details next term or the next or the next.
• New Right to Know Law is a good first step
Being unaware doesn’t make a person innocent, unless they are a child. But what happens when awareness is purposely shut down? What results from a lack of public consciousness when it is put to sleep by people in positions of power and privilege?
With a stronger Right to Know law on the horizon, power will be returned to people, and agencies will be made more accountable for their actions.
“If we can tear the roof off of state government so that people can see in, I think you’ll start to see more reforms come down the pike,” state Rep. Kerry Benninghoff (R-Bellefonte), said in a December press release.
If the House passes the bill next week, as the Senate unanimously did Wednesday, this could be the first step in a domino effect to reduce the separation between those in power and those disenfranchised by a system that doesn’t want the people to know.
Congratulations on a strong step forward for open government in Pennsylvania. The new law, however, will not enforce itself. Ensuring the new law is followed as it was intended will require public oversight and watchdogging how it gets implemented. Consider carrying on the blog in a new form or providing some ongoing analysis from a public perspective of how the new law is being followed. It surely will not be the last word on open government in Pennsylvania.