Opinion: What’s going on with the Sunshine Law?
OPINION
Update from the Capitol
By Deb Musselman
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
Director of Government Affairs
You’ll recall that back in 2007, then-Sen. Gibson Armstrong, reacting to the former Lancaster County Commissioners’ violation of the Sunshine Act (relating to the sale of the county nursing home), sponsored a bill to strengthen the law’s penalties, increasing fines up to $1,000. Although that bill passed the Senate with no negative votes, it sat in the House State Government Committee for the next 15 months, and only moved out of committee in the fall of last year. It ran out of time when no sine die or lame duck voting sessions were held, and died in the House.
The stage might be set for a similar scenario to unfold, as we note that Senate Bill 101, sponsored by Sen. Lloyd Smucker, Armstrong’s successor, has been in the House State Government Committee since June 3, 2009, after final passage in the Senate with a 48-1 vote.
The House Committee had voted on May 11 to send House Bill 1324, sponsored by Chairwoman Babette Josephs, to the floor, and it has been in Appropriations since then.
What’s so difficult about strengthening this law, anyway, with what seems like an obvious and straightforward improvement?
There has been some opposition from the school boards’ association, on the grounds that school directors are volunteers and they can’t afford that big fine! Well, it’s all about ‘willful’ violations, don’t forget: If you can’t afford the fine, don’t break the law.
Others have confused the issue by pushing for amendments to add more executive session exceptions. These usually involve the discussion of plans to counter terrorism or to discuss public safety and security, generally. Not surprisingly, many of the proposals are overly broad and not subject to any checks or criteria.
We opposed that executive session provision in the first version of House Bill 1324, and the State Government Committee did remove that language before voting to send the bill to the full House. Unfortunately, amendments to reinsert that language have already been filed for consideration by the full House, should the bill clear Appropriations. We hope legislators will consider the following:
As everyone is well aware, many hot issues are demanding attention these days at the Capitol, and there’s still more than a year left in this current session, so we’ll certainly be pressing for this needed reform. This is all grist for the “Media Hotline,” so keep those horror stories coming – they help to document the need to improve the law.
Update from the Capitol
By Deb Musselman
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
Director of Government Affairs
You’ll recall that back in 2007, then-Sen. Gibson Armstrong, reacting to the former Lancaster County Commissioners’ violation of the Sunshine Act (relating to the sale of the county nursing home), sponsored a bill to strengthen the law’s penalties, increasing fines up to $1,000. Although that bill passed the Senate with no negative votes, it sat in the House State Government Committee for the next 15 months, and only moved out of committee in the fall of last year. It ran out of time when no sine die or lame duck voting sessions were held, and died in the House.
The stage might be set for a similar scenario to unfold, as we note that Senate Bill 101, sponsored by Sen. Lloyd Smucker, Armstrong’s successor, has been in the House State Government Committee since June 3, 2009, after final passage in the Senate with a 48-1 vote.
The House Committee had voted on May 11 to send House Bill 1324, sponsored by Chairwoman Babette Josephs, to the floor, and it has been in Appropriations since then.
What’s so difficult about strengthening this law, anyway, with what seems like an obvious and straightforward improvement?
There has been some opposition from the school boards’ association, on the grounds that school directors are volunteers and they can’t afford that big fine! Well, it’s all about ‘willful’ violations, don’t forget: If you can’t afford the fine, don’t break the law.
Others have confused the issue by pushing for amendments to add more executive session exceptions. These usually involve the discussion of plans to counter terrorism or to discuss public safety and security, generally. Not surprisingly, many of the proposals are overly broad and not subject to any checks or criteria.
We opposed that executive session provision in the first version of House Bill 1324, and the State Government Committee did remove that language before voting to send the bill to the full House. Unfortunately, amendments to reinsert that language have already been filed for consideration by the full House, should the bill clear Appropriations. We hope legislators will consider the following:
- The law already permits executive session discussions for matters that are confidential by law. Adding to the reasons why local government officials can meet behind closed doors is unnecessary and counter to the public’s interest. We have enough problems with closed-door meetings in many municipalities. Let’s not add to them!
- One change that is necessary is a requirement that agencies record all executive sessions, a measure that other states have already adopted. The recordings would be available for in camera review in the event of a court challenge and would constitute the only actual evidence of whether a violation occurred. They would not be public records unless and until a court ordered their release. Click here for our simple list of needed improvements. See this article by Christopher Casey and Erin Galbally of Dilworth Paxson, on needed reforms to the Sunshine Act.
As everyone is well aware, many hot issues are demanding attention these days at the Capitol, and there’s still more than a year left in this current session, so we’ll certainly be pressing for this needed reform. This is all grist for the “Media Hotline,” so keep those horror stories coming – they help to document the need to improve the law.
