More roadblocks in right to know
On Wednesday, Pennsylvania’s Senate unanimously approved a bill designed to update and tweak the Open Records Law. Following the vote, Sen. Matt Smith, whose district includes a portion of Washington County, proclaimed the measure “marks the next phase of openness in the commonwealth” and it “makes significant improvements and clarifies language to ensure that Pennsylvania’s Open Records Law is effective and implemented in line with the law’s original spirit.”
While there are some good things in the bill, which is expected to be taken up by the House next month, we can’t share Smith’s unalloyed enthusiasm. On the plus side, it does require that public records be provided in a format convenient for the individual or organization making the request, whether that’s on paper or a computer file. It also expands the time frame for appealing a denial of information from 15 days to 20 and increases access to records of state-related institutions, such as universities, and the salaries that are paid to individuals within them.
But the watchdogs at the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association pointed out a number of flaws in the bill that, we hope, will be ironed out before it reaches Gov. Tom Corbett’s desk. Perhaps most glaring is an amendment that would limit public access to the records of a private contractor carrying out a task for a government agency. The bill would limit information to only that which relates to the contract itself, not any other records the contractor would accumulate in the course of doing the job. In the estimation of the PNA, this “would eliminate the public’s ability to hold government accountable when it outsources government functions and allow government agencies to contract away the public’s right to know.”
It also closes off access to the records of volunteer fire companies, rescue and ambulance services, regardless of the public dollars that flow into their coffers, and limits requesters to “legal residents” of the commonwealth. Why make that distinction? Public records should be open to anyone, regardless of their address. In a bit of semantic do-si-do, the measure approved by the Senate states those requesting information “shall” provide enough information in their request for records, rather than “should.” The PNA has it right: This slight change in wording sets up a loophole for requests to be denied.
The public’s right to know is crucial in keeping government transparent and honest, and ensuring our tax dollars are spent wisely. The commonwealth should be dedicated to upholding this principle, not putting up unnecessary roadblocks.