Opinion: Lawmakers prefer working in the dark
OPINION
The [Shamokin] News-Item
Corruption hunters have a target-rich environment not only in Northeast Pennsylvania but in many parts of the commonwealth, including Harrisburg. But while federal and state prosecutors continue to work on individual criminal cases, little is being done institutionally to thwart corruption and improve governance.
Mandated transparency is a key weapon in the fight against corruption. But in Harrisburg, many lawmakers ignore it or actively work against it, even as the "Bonusgate" corruption investigation continues and federal prosecutors in Philadelphia seek to appeal the unduly lenient federal sentence against corrupt former state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo.
Several bills have been introduced to weaken the state Open Records Law, piece by piece. The current version of the law, which finally created a presumption of government openness and ended Pennsylvania's shame at having the worst public disclosure law in the nation, is just eight months old. Apparently, many politicians around the state are more comfortable operating in the dark.
Lawmakers who respect not only the public's right to public information, but the power of transparency to fight corruption, must resist the effort to eviscerate the law.
Meanwhile, the state Sunshine Law continues to be weak and virtually unenforceable.
As noted in an analysis for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, by attorneys Christopher H. Casey and Erin Galbally, the law provides no means to stop illegal government meetings.
The lawyers cited a case from last year, when the Philadelphia Inquirer attempted to stop a private meeting between Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and a quorum of city council. A judge found that the law empowers a court only to prevent "an action that is the result of an allegedly illegal meeting, not the meeting itself."
Obviously, the objective of the law should be to preclude illegal meetings. But the problem is even worse because public officials who meet illegally most often do not even state the subject of the meeting. So a party moving in court against such a meeting - most often a newspaper - inherently is unable to present key evidence.
Casey and Galbally recommended sound reforms to ensure transparency, including authorizing courts to issue preliminary injunctions against illegal meetings, requiring agencies to disclose to courts the subject of matter of challenged meetings, and establishing deterrents to illegal meetings such as fines for participants.
Given the sickening level of scandal afflicting Pennsylvania governments, at the local and state levels, lawmakers should be competing to come up with the best remedies instead of preserving ineffective laws and, worse, trying to diminish an improved one.
The [Shamokin] News-Item
Corruption hunters have a target-rich environment not only in Northeast Pennsylvania but in many parts of the commonwealth, including Harrisburg. But while federal and state prosecutors continue to work on individual criminal cases, little is being done institutionally to thwart corruption and improve governance.
Mandated transparency is a key weapon in the fight against corruption. But in Harrisburg, many lawmakers ignore it or actively work against it, even as the "Bonusgate" corruption investigation continues and federal prosecutors in Philadelphia seek to appeal the unduly lenient federal sentence against corrupt former state Sen. Vincent J. Fumo.
Several bills have been introduced to weaken the state Open Records Law, piece by piece. The current version of the law, which finally created a presumption of government openness and ended Pennsylvania's shame at having the worst public disclosure law in the nation, is just eight months old. Apparently, many politicians around the state are more comfortable operating in the dark.
Lawmakers who respect not only the public's right to public information, but the power of transparency to fight corruption, must resist the effort to eviscerate the law.
Meanwhile, the state Sunshine Law continues to be weak and virtually unenforceable.
As noted in an analysis for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, by attorneys Christopher H. Casey and Erin Galbally, the law provides no means to stop illegal government meetings.
The lawyers cited a case from last year, when the Philadelphia Inquirer attempted to stop a private meeting between Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter and a quorum of city council. A judge found that the law empowers a court only to prevent "an action that is the result of an allegedly illegal meeting, not the meeting itself."
Obviously, the objective of the law should be to preclude illegal meetings. But the problem is even worse because public officials who meet illegally most often do not even state the subject of the meeting. So a party moving in court against such a meeting - most often a newspaper - inherently is unable to present key evidence.
Casey and Galbally recommended sound reforms to ensure transparency, including authorizing courts to issue preliminary injunctions against illegal meetings, requiring agencies to disclose to courts the subject of matter of challenged meetings, and establishing deterrents to illegal meetings such as fines for participants.
Given the sickening level of scandal afflicting Pennsylvania governments, at the local and state levels, lawmakers should be competing to come up with the best remedies instead of preserving ineffective laws and, worse, trying to diminish an improved one.
