Opinion: A very necessary right-to-know ruling
OPINION
Williamsport Sun-Gazette
It seems like such a small thing.
But if Pennsylvania's revised Right-to-Know Law is to represent public access to public records, there need to be rulings such as the one made last week.
A state Commonwealth Court ruled that government agencies cannot charge people seeking public records for the time agency employees spend complying with requests.
The State Employees' Retirement System was trying to recover the cost of employees' labor in creating documents tailored to specific requests. Because the records already existed and were available and were merely being put in a more consolidated form, the court ruled the agency could not recover the costs.
Had the court ruled otherwise, the costs of such requests would be exorbitant, effectively making it too expensive for the general public to access many public records. While that would not necessarily keep most media from getting the records, it's not supposed to be cost-prohibitive to do the public's bidding.
The law already allows agencies to recover copying charges 25 cents a page is the recommended maximum and expenses "necessarily incurred" in responding to records requests.
Given what the spirit of this law is supposed to be about giving the public easier, more complete access to public information 25 cents a page seems like more than enough expense for what are supposed to be the public's records.
It's supposed to be all about informing the taxpaying public.
When it comes to that, hair-splitting is not supposed to be an issue.
Thanks to Commonwealth Court for recognizing that.
Williamsport Sun-Gazette
It seems like such a small thing.
But if Pennsylvania's revised Right-to-Know Law is to represent public access to public records, there need to be rulings such as the one made last week.
A state Commonwealth Court ruled that government agencies cannot charge people seeking public records for the time agency employees spend complying with requests.
The State Employees' Retirement System was trying to recover the cost of employees' labor in creating documents tailored to specific requests. Because the records already existed and were available and were merely being put in a more consolidated form, the court ruled the agency could not recover the costs.
Had the court ruled otherwise, the costs of such requests would be exorbitant, effectively making it too expensive for the general public to access many public records. While that would not necessarily keep most media from getting the records, it's not supposed to be cost-prohibitive to do the public's bidding.
The law already allows agencies to recover copying charges 25 cents a page is the recommended maximum and expenses "necessarily incurred" in responding to records requests.
Given what the spirit of this law is supposed to be about giving the public easier, more complete access to public information 25 cents a page seems like more than enough expense for what are supposed to be the public's records.
It's supposed to be all about informing the taxpaying public.
When it comes to that, hair-splitting is not supposed to be an issue.
Thanks to Commonwealth Court for recognizing that.
