Court says government must prove need to keep information secret
By Brian Bowling | PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
A state appeals court's first ruling on the new Right to Know Law upholds the idea that government agencies must prove they have a good reason for withholding information, lawyers and others said yesterday.
"It's a strong decision for open government," said Barry Fox, spokesman for the state Office of Open Records.
Commonwealth Court overturned an Office of Open Records decision that upheld the denial of a Tribune-Review request to see records of how fire departments and other agencies spent about $96 million in federal Homeland Security Grants.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency turned over a list of equipment purchased without the names of the agencies that received them, claiming that information would endanger state security. The Office of Open Records agreed.
A five-judge panel unanimously overturned the agencies' decisions Friday. Judge Robert Simpson said PEMA used the security claim to shield the purchase of many common items.
"By way of example, we fail to see how knowledge of the location of 'bungee cords' endangers public safety or security of facilities," Simpson wrote.
On the other hand, knowing who purchased computer servers or biochemical testing equipment could conceivably pose a risk, the ruling states. PEMA has to go through the list and make a case for withholding information on each purchase, the judges ruled.
Representatives for PEMA and the Office of Open Records said their agencies are still reviewing the decision.
State Sen. Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, sponsored the open records law, which took effect last year.
"That is exactly how he envisioned this working," said Pileggi's spokesman, Erik Arneson. "A blanket redaction is not within the spirit of the law, and now the court has ruled that it's not in the letter of the law."
David Strassburger, the Tribune-Review's lawyer, said the ruling is a victory for taxpayers. Unveiling the recipients will show whether some agencies have been getting the bulk of their equipment through federal grants while others have had to scrape up money locally, he said.
"Armed with that information, you can go to your government officials and complain," he said.
The ruling also puts agencies on notice that they can't use security concerns as a blanket excuse for withholding information, Strassburger said.
"They can't cloak something under the guise of public security or public safety merely because it was purchased with federal money from these programs," he said.
Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union, sponsored the new law in the House. He hadn't yet read the court's ruling, but said it was odd PEMA would refuse to release information about mundane purchases.
"We want to know how the money is being spent," he said.
Melissa Melewsky, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said the ruling makes it clear that the burden is no longer on the public for proving that information should be released but, rather, on the government for proving that it should be kept secret.
A state appeals court's first ruling on the new Right to Know Law upholds the idea that government agencies must prove they have a good reason for withholding information, lawyers and others said yesterday.
"It's a strong decision for open government," said Barry Fox, spokesman for the state Office of Open Records.
Commonwealth Court overturned an Office of Open Records decision that upheld the denial of a Tribune-Review request to see records of how fire departments and other agencies spent about $96 million in federal Homeland Security Grants.
The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency turned over a list of equipment purchased without the names of the agencies that received them, claiming that information would endanger state security. The Office of Open Records agreed.
A five-judge panel unanimously overturned the agencies' decisions Friday. Judge Robert Simpson said PEMA used the security claim to shield the purchase of many common items.
"By way of example, we fail to see how knowledge of the location of 'bungee cords' endangers public safety or security of facilities," Simpson wrote.
On the other hand, knowing who purchased computer servers or biochemical testing equipment could conceivably pose a risk, the ruling states. PEMA has to go through the list and make a case for withholding information on each purchase, the judges ruled.
Representatives for PEMA and the Office of Open Records said their agencies are still reviewing the decision.
State Sen. Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, sponsored the open records law, which took effect last year.
"That is exactly how he envisioned this working," said Pileggi's spokesman, Erik Arneson. "A blanket redaction is not within the spirit of the law, and now the court has ruled that it's not in the letter of the law."
David Strassburger, the Tribune-Review's lawyer, said the ruling is a victory for taxpayers. Unveiling the recipients will show whether some agencies have been getting the bulk of their equipment through federal grants while others have had to scrape up money locally, he said.
"Armed with that information, you can go to your government officials and complain," he said.
The ruling also puts agencies on notice that they can't use security concerns as a blanket excuse for withholding information, Strassburger said.
"They can't cloak something under the guise of public security or public safety merely because it was purchased with federal money from these programs," he said.
Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union, sponsored the new law in the House. He hadn't yet read the court's ruling, but said it was odd PEMA would refuse to release information about mundane purchases.
"We want to know how the money is being spent," he said.
Melissa Melewsky, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said the ruling makes it clear that the burden is no longer on the public for proving that information should be released but, rather, on the government for proving that it should be kept secret.
