Opinion: Taxpayers have a right to know
July 12, 2010 Right to Know Law | Open records
OPINION
The [Delaware County] Daily Times
This newspaper applauded state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, when he advanced the cause of open government by sponsoring the Open Records Act of 2009, but the struggle for public access continues.
Commonwealth Court issued decisions this month interpreting the amended Right to Know Law.
There was good news. East Stroudsburg University Foundation was ordered to release donation records, as well as certain meeting minutes, to the Pocono Record. This is the first appellate decision addressing the scope of the law’s provision dealing with records of third-party contractors performing a “governmental function.”
According to Judge Dan Pellegrini, writing for the majority, those records are public “because the government always acts as the government,” so all government contractors should be subject to the amended Right to Know law.
But the good news ended there.
In DCNR v. Office of Open Records, the Court ruled names and addresses in certified payroll records of third-party government contractors are not public.
The case was consolidated with two similar cases involving commonwealth agencies (Office of the Budget and the Department of General Services). In each case, a request for payroll records of third party contractors was submitted to the agencies, which redacted names and addresses from the records. The Office of Open Records granted access to the names and addresses, and the agencies appealed.
Why the same concept that applied in the East Stroudsburg case about government contractors did not apply to this case is confusing at best.
The law defines, “personal financial information” as “[a]n individual’s personal credit, charge or debit card information; bank account information; bank, credit or financial statements; account or PIN numbers and other information relating to an individual’s personal finances.” The DCNR decision expands “personal financial information” beyond the specifics in the law by including payroll records.
The dissenting opinion in the case agreed with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association that the names and addresses are not “personal financial information,” as they are not the type of information that can lead to access to an individual’s financial resources.
The question at stake here is where taxpayers’ dollars are going.
In another dispute, Jenna Mehnert, executive director of the state branch of the National Association of Social Workers, said Pennsylvania’s standards for social workers falls short of the national standard. The national Council on Accreditation requires a bachelor’s degree in a field related to human services. But in this state, social workers need only 12 college credits.
Mehnert’s organization requested Children and Youth Services to provide them with resumes of caseworkers and casework supervisors so it could compile a database throughout the state and amend state law to bring Pennsylvania in compliance with the national standard. Three counties balked about releasing the information, requiring court action.
And then there is State Rep. Tim Solobay, D-Canonsburg, a candidate for the state Senate, fighting to exempt addresses from the 911 response logs available to the public and the press.
The question at stake here is the right to know if a burglary ring or any type of criminal activity is occurring in a specific neighborhood.
If readers’ or individuals citizens’ ability to answer those questions is denied, who benefits?
Privacy is important. It is protected in the Constitution. But the spending of taxpayer money, attempting to upgrade social service standards or addresses of scenes of crime are not information the courts or the people elected to office should try to protect.
The [Delaware County] Daily Times
This newspaper applauded state Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of Chester, when he advanced the cause of open government by sponsoring the Open Records Act of 2009, but the struggle for public access continues.
Commonwealth Court issued decisions this month interpreting the amended Right to Know Law.
There was good news. East Stroudsburg University Foundation was ordered to release donation records, as well as certain meeting minutes, to the Pocono Record. This is the first appellate decision addressing the scope of the law’s provision dealing with records of third-party contractors performing a “governmental function.”
According to Judge Dan Pellegrini, writing for the majority, those records are public “because the government always acts as the government,” so all government contractors should be subject to the amended Right to Know law.
But the good news ended there.
In DCNR v. Office of Open Records, the Court ruled names and addresses in certified payroll records of third-party government contractors are not public.
The case was consolidated with two similar cases involving commonwealth agencies (Office of the Budget and the Department of General Services). In each case, a request for payroll records of third party contractors was submitted to the agencies, which redacted names and addresses from the records. The Office of Open Records granted access to the names and addresses, and the agencies appealed.
Why the same concept that applied in the East Stroudsburg case about government contractors did not apply to this case is confusing at best.
The law defines, “personal financial information” as “[a]n individual’s personal credit, charge or debit card information; bank account information; bank, credit or financial statements; account or PIN numbers and other information relating to an individual’s personal finances.” The DCNR decision expands “personal financial information” beyond the specifics in the law by including payroll records.
The dissenting opinion in the case agreed with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association that the names and addresses are not “personal financial information,” as they are not the type of information that can lead to access to an individual’s financial resources.
The question at stake here is where taxpayers’ dollars are going.
In another dispute, Jenna Mehnert, executive director of the state branch of the National Association of Social Workers, said Pennsylvania’s standards for social workers falls short of the national standard. The national Council on Accreditation requires a bachelor’s degree in a field related to human services. But in this state, social workers need only 12 college credits.
Mehnert’s organization requested Children and Youth Services to provide them with resumes of caseworkers and casework supervisors so it could compile a database throughout the state and amend state law to bring Pennsylvania in compliance with the national standard. Three counties balked about releasing the information, requiring court action.
And then there is State Rep. Tim Solobay, D-Canonsburg, a candidate for the state Senate, fighting to exempt addresses from the 911 response logs available to the public and the press.
The question at stake here is the right to know if a burglary ring or any type of criminal activity is occurring in a specific neighborhood.
If readers’ or individuals citizens’ ability to answer those questions is denied, who benefits?
Privacy is important. It is protected in the Constitution. But the spending of taxpayer money, attempting to upgrade social service standards or addresses of scenes of crime are not information the courts or the people elected to office should try to protect.
