Opinion: Is it really all about safety?
OPINION
By Deborah Musselman
Director of Government Affairs
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
It’s been a busy spring and summer defending against a plethora of legislative proposals that all reduce citizens’ access to information, from ‘shoppers’ bills that would steer controversial legal notices to that junk mail at the foot of your driveway, to Internet ‘advertising’ that would give a leg up to somebody’s best buddy – oops, pre-qualified bidder. (Don’t forget, you can click here to check out the status of any bill we’re tracking.)
We told you last week about House Bill 1667, a bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Hanna (D., Clinton Co.) that would exempt birth dates from the Right-to-Know Law. The bill sailed out of the House State Government Committee on Wednesday, July 29, but not before they amended it to also protect the home addresses of anyone employed by any publicly funded educational entity.
Curiously, Commonwealth Court had issued a preliminary injunction on July 28, the day before, prohibiting the Office of Open Records from ordering the release of public school employees’ home addresses, at the request of the PA State Education Association (PSEA). On the same day, the Senate Education Committee voted unanimously to protect “teacher” home addresses under a School Code amendment, SB993.
Whew! What’s going on here? Yes, the Office of Open Records (OOR) has issued several Final Determinations on exactly this issue, and our legislature has a long track record of moving
legislation to make people feel better about something. We’ve explained this before, but there are critical reasons for dates of birth and home addresses to remain presumptively public, including that they are used to verify the identities of individuals charged with crimes. Since Social Security numbers are protected by numerous state and federal laws, date of birth is an essential identifier that actually prevents fraud by removing the ‘generic’ identification of people with the same name.
Denny Bonavita says it better than we can, in this excellent editorial in The Courier- Express (DuBois).
As a more practical matter, does anyone really believe that exempting these items from the Right-to-Know Law means that they are not public or widely available? In an open society, we
have phone books, voter registration street lists, and, of course, the wonderful World Wide Web. We’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: All of these proposals, however well-intentioned,
would do more harm than good, and actually amount to nothing more than a feel-good measure, with little meaning. If they really want to open up the 2008 Open Records Act, we have a list of deficiencies, too.
But there’s a new wrinkle in this latest anti-transparency eruption, because OOR Director Terry Mutchler has acknowledged some misgivings about releasing home
addresses, particularly where other states reportedly protect them.
Given the state of the current fiscal year budget, with the House and Senate basically on six-hour call, it’s unclear how quickly either or both of these bills will move, but we will monitor the situation closely, advance our own “necessary corrections” list, and keep you posted on new developments.
By Deborah Musselman
Director of Government Affairs
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
It’s been a busy spring and summer defending against a plethora of legislative proposals that all reduce citizens’ access to information, from ‘shoppers’ bills that would steer controversial legal notices to that junk mail at the foot of your driveway, to Internet ‘advertising’ that would give a leg up to somebody’s best buddy – oops, pre-qualified bidder. (Don’t forget, you can click here to check out the status of any bill we’re tracking.)
We told you last week about House Bill 1667, a bill sponsored by Rep. Mike Hanna (D., Clinton Co.) that would exempt birth dates from the Right-to-Know Law. The bill sailed out of the House State Government Committee on Wednesday, July 29, but not before they amended it to also protect the home addresses of anyone employed by any publicly funded educational entity.
Curiously, Commonwealth Court had issued a preliminary injunction on July 28, the day before, prohibiting the Office of Open Records from ordering the release of public school employees’ home addresses, at the request of the PA State Education Association (PSEA). On the same day, the Senate Education Committee voted unanimously to protect “teacher” home addresses under a School Code amendment, SB993.
Whew! What’s going on here? Yes, the Office of Open Records (OOR) has issued several Final Determinations on exactly this issue, and our legislature has a long track record of moving
legislation to make people feel better about something. We’ve explained this before, but there are critical reasons for dates of birth and home addresses to remain presumptively public, including that they are used to verify the identities of individuals charged with crimes. Since Social Security numbers are protected by numerous state and federal laws, date of birth is an essential identifier that actually prevents fraud by removing the ‘generic’ identification of people with the same name.
Denny Bonavita says it better than we can, in this excellent editorial in The Courier- Express (DuBois).
As a more practical matter, does anyone really believe that exempting these items from the Right-to-Know Law means that they are not public or widely available? In an open society, we
have phone books, voter registration street lists, and, of course, the wonderful World Wide Web. We’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: All of these proposals, however well-intentioned,
would do more harm than good, and actually amount to nothing more than a feel-good measure, with little meaning. If they really want to open up the 2008 Open Records Act, we have a list of deficiencies, too.
But there’s a new wrinkle in this latest anti-transparency eruption, because OOR Director Terry Mutchler has acknowledged some misgivings about releasing home
addresses, particularly where other states reportedly protect them.
Given the state of the current fiscal year budget, with the House and Senate basically on six-hour call, it’s unclear how quickly either or both of these bills will move, but we will monitor the situation closely, advance our own “necessary corrections” list, and keep you posted on new developments.
