THE WATCHDOG: New records law opening up access
March 01, 2009
THE WATCHDOG BLOG
Paul Muschick | The [Allentown] Morning Call
Early evidence shows Pennsylvania's new Right to Know Law is doing what it's designed to, giving the public more access to records that show how governments are behaving and spending tax money.
Last week, the state open records office posted rulings on its first six appeals. In three cases, one in Quakertown, it ruled governments must provide information they initially refused to release.
Governments could have kept the information secret under the old Right to Know law in two of those cases, said Barry Fox, deputy director of open records.
While only a few cases, it's a good sign. It's also a good sign the office has more than 100 other appeals pending. That means people are using the law.
This might surprise you, but Fox said only a handful of the appeals are from the media fighting for records. Most are from citizens, which proves what I've said before: This isn't a media vs. government issue.
The information is yours.
One successful appeal pitted a union official from Nazareth against the Quakertown Community School District.
Kim Green, a marketing representative for Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669, asked the school district for a certified payroll of Deja Vu Mechanicals, a Bushkill Township company renovating Richland Elementary School.
Requests for information under the Right to Know Law do not have to explain why the information is sought. But Green's letter said he wanted it ''to assure compliance'' with labor standards, including prevailing wage and other laws.
The district gave Green the payroll, but redacted the employees' names. Green appealed and won. The district told me it doesn't intend to appeal to county court and will provide the names.
Green told me he asked other Lehigh Valley area school districts for similar reports. One provided it, others haven't. He's appealed those cases, too. He also had asked for information under the old law, and said the responses varied.
Fox said certified payrolls of private companies on public works projects were not public records under the old law.
So the new law is working for Green.
''It was an easy process, as compared to the past law,'' he said. ''The past law, if someone didn't want to respond to you, they crumpled [your request] up and threw it away. It was your responsibility to justify … that it was public.''
That's the big difference between the laws. The new one assumes most information is public. The old one didn't.
The office also upheld appeals requesting a payroll, including employees' birth dates, from the Port Authority of Allegheny County, and education contracts and agreements from the Lancaster School District.
The Morning Call has appealed a decision by the Northampton Area School District to deny the newspaper a copy of its proposed budget.
Get this: District administrators say the document given to the board isn't a ''proposed'' budget as defined by the state school code, but a draft that will be used to create a proposed budget.
I guess administrators made a typo in the computer presentation they gave to the school board and public on Feb. 17, titled ''Northampton Area School District 2009-10 Proposed General Fund Budget.''
As you can see, some governments still don't believe in openness.
Let's imagine for a minute the Northampton Area School District doesn't have to release the document. It still can release it. That's good government, especially when the budget could hike property taxes by nearly 4 percent.
The Morning Call also has challenged the state Department of Aging's denial of a request for data pertaining to problems at area nursing homes. The open records office has 30 days to rule on the appeals.
Only one of the three appeals denied by the state office last week is questionable to me. That involved a building inspection report in Penndel, Bucks County. The office accepted the borough's explanation that the report was ''investigative.'' The law permits investigative reports to be withheld.
I side more with the citizen who fought for the record. As the open records office noted in its opinion, the citizen made ''a very strong public policy argument that taxpayers paid for the report and therefore should be entitled to the content of the report.''
Also denied were an appeal of a vague request for access to PennDOT information, and a request for state Department of Public Welfare bidding documents, which already were destroyed under state records retention laws.
The appeals rulings can be challenged in county or state court.
I've put copies of the appeals and related documents, as well as tips and information about the Right to Know Law, on my blog.
Paul Muschick | The [Allentown] Morning Call
Early evidence shows Pennsylvania's new Right to Know Law is doing what it's designed to, giving the public more access to records that show how governments are behaving and spending tax money.
Last week, the state open records office posted rulings on its first six appeals. In three cases, one in Quakertown, it ruled governments must provide information they initially refused to release.
Governments could have kept the information secret under the old Right to Know law in two of those cases, said Barry Fox, deputy director of open records.
While only a few cases, it's a good sign. It's also a good sign the office has more than 100 other appeals pending. That means people are using the law.
This might surprise you, but Fox said only a handful of the appeals are from the media fighting for records. Most are from citizens, which proves what I've said before: This isn't a media vs. government issue.
The information is yours.
One successful appeal pitted a union official from Nazareth against the Quakertown Community School District.
Kim Green, a marketing representative for Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669, asked the school district for a certified payroll of Deja Vu Mechanicals, a Bushkill Township company renovating Richland Elementary School.
Requests for information under the Right to Know Law do not have to explain why the information is sought. But Green's letter said he wanted it ''to assure compliance'' with labor standards, including prevailing wage and other laws.
The district gave Green the payroll, but redacted the employees' names. Green appealed and won. The district told me it doesn't intend to appeal to county court and will provide the names.
Green told me he asked other Lehigh Valley area school districts for similar reports. One provided it, others haven't. He's appealed those cases, too. He also had asked for information under the old law, and said the responses varied.
Fox said certified payrolls of private companies on public works projects were not public records under the old law.
So the new law is working for Green.
''It was an easy process, as compared to the past law,'' he said. ''The past law, if someone didn't want to respond to you, they crumpled [your request] up and threw it away. It was your responsibility to justify … that it was public.''
That's the big difference between the laws. The new one assumes most information is public. The old one didn't.
The office also upheld appeals requesting a payroll, including employees' birth dates, from the Port Authority of Allegheny County, and education contracts and agreements from the Lancaster School District.
The Morning Call has appealed a decision by the Northampton Area School District to deny the newspaper a copy of its proposed budget.
Get this: District administrators say the document given to the board isn't a ''proposed'' budget as defined by the state school code, but a draft that will be used to create a proposed budget.
I guess administrators made a typo in the computer presentation they gave to the school board and public on Feb. 17, titled ''Northampton Area School District 2009-10 Proposed General Fund Budget.''
As you can see, some governments still don't believe in openness.
Let's imagine for a minute the Northampton Area School District doesn't have to release the document. It still can release it. That's good government, especially when the budget could hike property taxes by nearly 4 percent.
The Morning Call also has challenged the state Department of Aging's denial of a request for data pertaining to problems at area nursing homes. The open records office has 30 days to rule on the appeals.
Only one of the three appeals denied by the state office last week is questionable to me. That involved a building inspection report in Penndel, Bucks County. The office accepted the borough's explanation that the report was ''investigative.'' The law permits investigative reports to be withheld.
I side more with the citizen who fought for the record. As the open records office noted in its opinion, the citizen made ''a very strong public policy argument that taxpayers paid for the report and therefore should be entitled to the content of the report.''
Also denied were an appeal of a vague request for access to PennDOT information, and a request for state Department of Public Welfare bidding documents, which already were destroyed under state records retention laws.
The appeals rulings can be challenged in county or state court.
I've put copies of the appeals and related documents, as well as tips and information about the Right to Know Law, on my blog.
