Opinion: Your rights would be limited under amended Right-to-Know Law
OPINION
Watchdog
By Paul Muschick
The Morning Call
Governments in Pennsylvania have been forced to operate in a more-open manner since the start of last year because an updated Right-to-Know Law forces them to make public more documents about how they spend public money and how they act on the public's behalf.
It was only a matter of time, though, before lawmakers sought to amend the law, as governments complained that being forced to be so open is such a strain.
Two bills were introduced in the House in the past few months. House Bill 2652, authored by Rep. William F. Adolph Jr., a Delaware County Republican, would require records requestors to declare whether their request is commercial in nature. In other words, are you going to use the public information to make a buck? If so, governments could charge you for the time it takes to process your request.
House Bill 1345, introduced by Rep. Doug Reichley, a Lehigh County Republican, would allow governments to charge a labor fee for all records requests that require the duplication of more than 100 pages.
Today's Watchdog column explains more, including why these amendments are a bad idea. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Terry Mutchler is director of the state Office of Open Records. She told me she has concerns about both bills, and intends to voice them to the legislature.
Mutchler acknowledges record requests can be a drain on the resources of some small agencies, but disagrees that these proposals are the solution.
“I think it’s really climbing a slippery slope when you start assessing who can get public records for a fee and who can’t,” Mutchler told me. “There will be public agencies that use the purse strings as a way to block access to public records, and that’s a problem.”
Simon Campbell is a Bucks County resident who frequently seeks public records to collect information about teachers unions in his role as president of Stop Teacher Strikes in Pennsylvania, a not-for-profit advocacy organization.
He says Adolph’s proposed amendment “is designed to control what a requester does with public records and potentially make criminals out of them for using public records in a way that the government doesn’t approve of. And it seeks to financially profit from requesters deemed to want public records for supposedly wrong reasons.”
He said Reichley’s proposal to allow labor fees for duplicating more than 100 pages is ridiculous.
“How fast can a high-speed copier churn out 1,000 copies? Maybe 15 minutes,” Campbell said. “So, what is that? $1,000 per hour labor fee, on top of the copying charges. As it stands, it is ridiculous to even allow agencies to charge $0.25 on a copying fee …let alone add a new labor fee. Staples will make copies for $0.08 and that’ll include their labor costs.”
Mutchler said agencies already have used copy fees as a way to block the release of information, and agrees with Campbell about the fee being too hight, even though she set it.
“Twenty-five cents is a lot in this day and age when you can go to Kinko’s and get it for a nickel,” she said.
Mutchler said there may be some merit to establishing a tiered fee system like the one included in the federal open records law, the Freedom of Information Act. That law allows agencies to charge different fees for processing requests based on who is asking, and how much they're asking for.
The proposed legislation has supporters, too.
Adolph's bill has 39 co-sponsors. Reichley's bill has 18 co-sponsors.
There's also support from local governments that say the law isn't working, because they're buried under enormous requests for information.
Mike Moore, a spokesman for Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski's administration, told me the administration "supports the proposed bills, but is concerned that they don’t go far enough to address the issue. The administration recommends a thorough review of the law because in practice it hasn’t worked. In particular, the time requirements and the cost of that time are burdensome. We understand the public has a right to information, but when staff is essentially working to complete a barrage of fishing expeditions of one or two people, or in one case a California doctorate student’s request for police information dating back decades, changes are necessary.”
Moore wouldn't name names when I asked him who was fishing, but there's no doubt that Jarrett Renshaw, The Morning Call's City Hall reporter, has uncovered some things the city didn't want uncovered by asking for public records that revealed questionable spending and lack of oversight of a city grant program for stores and restaurants, and potential sick time abuse by city firefighters. Just last week, Renshaw used public records to reveal that a firefighter was fired after being accused of golfing after calling out sick.
Yet it may surprise you to know that the media don't make the majority of records requests. Most are made by businesses or citizens looking for information. So amendments to the law aren't going to hurt us. They're going to hurt you.
Watchdog
By Paul Muschick
The Morning Call
Governments in Pennsylvania have been forced to operate in a more-open manner since the start of last year because an updated Right-to-Know Law forces them to make public more documents about how they spend public money and how they act on the public's behalf.
It was only a matter of time, though, before lawmakers sought to amend the law, as governments complained that being forced to be so open is such a strain.
Two bills were introduced in the House in the past few months. House Bill 2652, authored by Rep. William F. Adolph Jr., a Delaware County Republican, would require records requestors to declare whether their request is commercial in nature. In other words, are you going to use the public information to make a buck? If so, governments could charge you for the time it takes to process your request.
House Bill 1345, introduced by Rep. Doug Reichley, a Lehigh County Republican, would allow governments to charge a labor fee for all records requests that require the duplication of more than 100 pages.
Today's Watchdog column explains more, including why these amendments are a bad idea. I'm not the only one who thinks so.
Terry Mutchler is director of the state Office of Open Records. She told me she has concerns about both bills, and intends to voice them to the legislature.
Mutchler acknowledges record requests can be a drain on the resources of some small agencies, but disagrees that these proposals are the solution.
“I think it’s really climbing a slippery slope when you start assessing who can get public records for a fee and who can’t,” Mutchler told me. “There will be public agencies that use the purse strings as a way to block access to public records, and that’s a problem.”
Simon Campbell is a Bucks County resident who frequently seeks public records to collect information about teachers unions in his role as president of Stop Teacher Strikes in Pennsylvania, a not-for-profit advocacy organization.
He says Adolph’s proposed amendment “is designed to control what a requester does with public records and potentially make criminals out of them for using public records in a way that the government doesn’t approve of. And it seeks to financially profit from requesters deemed to want public records for supposedly wrong reasons.”
He said Reichley’s proposal to allow labor fees for duplicating more than 100 pages is ridiculous.
“How fast can a high-speed copier churn out 1,000 copies? Maybe 15 minutes,” Campbell said. “So, what is that? $1,000 per hour labor fee, on top of the copying charges. As it stands, it is ridiculous to even allow agencies to charge $0.25 on a copying fee …let alone add a new labor fee. Staples will make copies for $0.08 and that’ll include their labor costs.”
Mutchler said agencies already have used copy fees as a way to block the release of information, and agrees with Campbell about the fee being too hight, even though she set it.
“Twenty-five cents is a lot in this day and age when you can go to Kinko’s and get it for a nickel,” she said.
Mutchler said there may be some merit to establishing a tiered fee system like the one included in the federal open records law, the Freedom of Information Act. That law allows agencies to charge different fees for processing requests based on who is asking, and how much they're asking for.
The proposed legislation has supporters, too.
Adolph's bill has 39 co-sponsors. Reichley's bill has 18 co-sponsors.
There's also support from local governments that say the law isn't working, because they're buried under enormous requests for information.
Mike Moore, a spokesman for Allentown Mayor Ed Pawlowski's administration, told me the administration "supports the proposed bills, but is concerned that they don’t go far enough to address the issue. The administration recommends a thorough review of the law because in practice it hasn’t worked. In particular, the time requirements and the cost of that time are burdensome. We understand the public has a right to information, but when staff is essentially working to complete a barrage of fishing expeditions of one or two people, or in one case a California doctorate student’s request for police information dating back decades, changes are necessary.”
Moore wouldn't name names when I asked him who was fishing, but there's no doubt that Jarrett Renshaw, The Morning Call's City Hall reporter, has uncovered some things the city didn't want uncovered by asking for public records that revealed questionable spending and lack of oversight of a city grant program for stores and restaurants, and potential sick time abuse by city firefighters. Just last week, Renshaw used public records to reveal that a firefighter was fired after being accused of golfing after calling out sick.
Yet it may surprise you to know that the media don't make the majority of records requests. Most are made by businesses or citizens looking for information. So amendments to the law aren't going to hurt us. They're going to hurt you.
