Opinion: State must close open records loophole
April 10, 2009
OPINION
[Chambersburg] Public Opinion
It took no time at all, only about three months, for elected Pennsylvania officials to mount a highly significant challenge to the state's fledgling Right-to-Know Law.
Most observers expected a push against what had been hailed by lawmakers last year as a comprehensive defense against efforts to keep the public in the dark, especially the practice of conducting secret deliberations before springing a decision upon citizens left to wonder how they got there.
And, indeed, it appears Pennsylvania's reputation as a Land of Secrets remains in intact.
Here's what happened: The Northampton Area School Board recently provided its draft budget proposal to a reporter the day after a public meeting during which the board discussed the document. But it blacked out the dollar figures.
On appeal, the state's Open Records Office upheld the school board's decision.
In her ruling, appeals officer Lucinda Glinn reasoned that since the board made no decision at the meeting, it could withhold the information under a provision in the new law that exempts documents used in "predecisional deliberations."
That interpretation amounts to a subversion of the spirit codified into the letter of the new law, and a most dispiriting development for those interested in keeping officials honest.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said the Right-to-Know and open meetings laws are intended to ensure public access to most agency deliberations, whether they are confined to the day of the vote or unfold over a course of weeks.
"If we don't have the documents to follow along in those discussions, then the Sunshine Act and (the provision of the Right-to-Know Law) could be rendered meaningless," Melewsky told Associated Press.
We couldn't have said it better, especially when the issue at hand is the use of public money.
This school district has effectively turned the predecisional deliberation provision into a loophole that threatens to make the new law moot.
Regardless of the emergence and outcome of any additional appeals, the state Legislature should immediately support its rhetoric with action, and amend the new Right-to-Know Law to close this loophole.
-- By Matthew Major, on behalf of Public Opinion's editorial board
[Chambersburg] Public Opinion
It took no time at all, only about three months, for elected Pennsylvania officials to mount a highly significant challenge to the state's fledgling Right-to-Know Law.
Most observers expected a push against what had been hailed by lawmakers last year as a comprehensive defense against efforts to keep the public in the dark, especially the practice of conducting secret deliberations before springing a decision upon citizens left to wonder how they got there.
And, indeed, it appears Pennsylvania's reputation as a Land of Secrets remains in intact.
Here's what happened: The Northampton Area School Board recently provided its draft budget proposal to a reporter the day after a public meeting during which the board discussed the document. But it blacked out the dollar figures.
On appeal, the state's Open Records Office upheld the school board's decision.
In her ruling, appeals officer Lucinda Glinn reasoned that since the board made no decision at the meeting, it could withhold the information under a provision in the new law that exempts documents used in "predecisional deliberations."
That interpretation amounts to a subversion of the spirit codified into the letter of the new law, and a most dispiriting development for those interested in keeping officials honest.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said the Right-to-Know and open meetings laws are intended to ensure public access to most agency deliberations, whether they are confined to the day of the vote or unfold over a course of weeks.
"If we don't have the documents to follow along in those discussions, then the Sunshine Act and (the provision of the Right-to-Know Law) could be rendered meaningless," Melewsky told Associated Press.
We couldn't have said it better, especially when the issue at hand is the use of public money.
This school district has effectively turned the predecisional deliberation provision into a loophole that threatens to make the new law moot.
Regardless of the emergence and outcome of any additional appeals, the state Legislature should immediately support its rhetoric with action, and amend the new Right-to-Know Law to close this loophole.
-- By Matthew Major, on behalf of Public Opinion's editorial board
