Opinion: Records law applies to all levels of government
April 13, 2009
OPINION
[Chambersburg] Public Opinion
Late last week, we commented on a lamentable challenge to Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law by a school district that withheld numbers from a draft budget discussed at a public meeting.
We recommended the Legislature quickly close an emerging loophole in the law driven by that particular school district, never imagining additional difficulties might arise from within the state's executive branch headed by Gov. Ed Rendell.
But according to a report Friday, the Philadelphia Inquirer obtained a letter from the head of the state's Office of Open Records questioning whether the Rendell administration still supports transparent official business in Pennsylvania.
Amid a broader list of concerns, according to the Inquirer, Terry Mutchler, public records office executive director, noted in her letter that Rendell's lawyers instructed state agencies not to take her calls, insisting upon written communications. In addition, the state Department of Environmental Protection is making a court issue of its denial of a records request on the basis of its size -- some 3,500 pages.
The state's new records policy passed by the Legislature last year took effect Jan. 1, stipulating all state, county, and local government records are public unless specifically exempted. The law also created Mutchler's office to manage the reversal of what had been one of the nation's most restrictive definitions of a public record.
These changes were rightly praised as a promising development for a state reeling from midnight votes and systemic corruption in the Legislature, ranging from the pay raise of 2005 to the misuse of public funds in 2006 re-election campaigns. The shift to a codified presumption of openness amounted to the lone bright spot in an overall reform effort that otherwise went nowhere. (Incidentally, the Legislature exempted itself from the new open records law, setting up its own internal appeal system that Mutchler's office cannot influence.)
At best, Rendell's insistence upon written open records communications amounts to an unnecessary increase in bureaucratic inefficiency. At worst, it indicates heel-digging resistance to a progressive new law signed by Rendell himself.
We understand it might take time for procedures to adjust to such an enormous shift in records policy.
But it doesn't bode well for the new law's success if the highest levels of state government continue to provide a bad example for municipalities and school districts to follow.
[Chambersburg] Public Opinion
Late last week, we commented on a lamentable challenge to Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law by a school district that withheld numbers from a draft budget discussed at a public meeting.
We recommended the Legislature quickly close an emerging loophole in the law driven by that particular school district, never imagining additional difficulties might arise from within the state's executive branch headed by Gov. Ed Rendell.
But according to a report Friday, the Philadelphia Inquirer obtained a letter from the head of the state's Office of Open Records questioning whether the Rendell administration still supports transparent official business in Pennsylvania.
Amid a broader list of concerns, according to the Inquirer, Terry Mutchler, public records office executive director, noted in her letter that Rendell's lawyers instructed state agencies not to take her calls, insisting upon written communications. In addition, the state Department of Environmental Protection is making a court issue of its denial of a records request on the basis of its size -- some 3,500 pages.
The state's new records policy passed by the Legislature last year took effect Jan. 1, stipulating all state, county, and local government records are public unless specifically exempted. The law also created Mutchler's office to manage the reversal of what had been one of the nation's most restrictive definitions of a public record.
These changes were rightly praised as a promising development for a state reeling from midnight votes and systemic corruption in the Legislature, ranging from the pay raise of 2005 to the misuse of public funds in 2006 re-election campaigns. The shift to a codified presumption of openness amounted to the lone bright spot in an overall reform effort that otherwise went nowhere. (Incidentally, the Legislature exempted itself from the new open records law, setting up its own internal appeal system that Mutchler's office cannot influence.)
At best, Rendell's insistence upon written open records communications amounts to an unnecessary increase in bureaucratic inefficiency. At worst, it indicates heel-digging resistance to a progressive new law signed by Rendell himself.
We understand it might take time for procedures to adjust to such an enormous shift in records policy.
But it doesn't bode well for the new law's success if the highest levels of state government continue to provide a bad example for municipalities and school districts to follow.
