Right to Know law makes stop in State College
Oct. 17, 2007
By Jessica VanderKolk
Altoona Mirror
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — The state’s Constitution declares that Pennsylvania courts shall be open; however, they do not fall under the Right to Know law, which gives public access to government records.
Centre County District Judge Carmine Prestia Jr. pointed to the inconsistency Tuesday, saying that his court provides any record a citizen requests.
To help people understand the 50-year-old law, its proposed changes and how to request records, the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition is holding forums across the state with the help of local officials, journalists and lawyers.
About 20 people attended the group’s State College forum Tuesday, including Prestia.
Three bills to broaden the Right to Know law await legislative committee votes; one could receive a vote as early as today.
The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association aimed to spread awareness by issuing a challenge this fall, asking residents across the state to request documents and discuss the results.
Robert Baillie of State College requested a copy of the contract between the state and investment firm Morgan Stanley.
Gov. Ed Rendell announced March 29 that he selected the firm to analyze transportation funding options, particularly involving the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
Baillie received a “professional and timely” response from the governor’s office.
However, they denied his request, saying the contract would become public after it was signed.
“But then it’s already a done deal,” he said. “I wanted to find out about it beforehand.”
Under the Right to Know law, a contract is considered public, but before parties sign a contract, it’s considered an offer.
“As a result, it’s not yet an executed contract,” said Penn State professor Robert D. Richards, who serves as vice president of the coalition. “It’s a gray area. It’s unfortunate the way the law is; it has gray areas.”
State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, said this is the year for a change.
“One sticking point is, how far do we say everything is open?” he asked. “That’s a big cultural change in Harrisburg.”
Rep. Camille “Bud” George, D-Houtzdale, expressed concern about provisions within the proposed legislation, but he believes the public should have more access.
He co-sponsored the House bill addressing public records but hesitates to support a provision creating a new government office to field records requests.
“Do we really want state government in the information-marketing business?” he asked. “If we can achieve transparency and access to public information, it is then the responsibility of a free and unfettered press to report as it sees fit, not as, when or if the government sees fit.”
Having lived in Illinois and Colorado, Baillie said it’s “frightening” that state government hides so many records.
“I was shocked to find most of Penn State is not covered by the open records law,” he said. “I worked for the University of Illinois, and all the salaries of the employees and everything they did was public record. Here, it’s just the opposite.”
The Better Government Association, a Chicago-based government watchdog group, ranked Pennsylvania 47th — tied with Alaska — in a list of open records laws nationwide. Only Alabama and South Dakota ranked worse.
On the table
Proposed bills addressing the state’s open records law:
Senate Bill 1:
Measure would require agencies to have an open records office and an officer to handle requests. They must respond within five business days and face a $1,000 penalty, plus prosecution costs. The Department of Community and Economic Development would create an open records clearinghouse to provide agencies with training and create a Web site to post advisories and decisions.
Senate Bill 765:
Measure places the burden of proving information is not a public record on the government agency denying access. It includes state universities and the Legislature, which are not under current law. Agencies must respond in 10 business days and face a $500 penalty.
House Bill 443:
Measure places the burden of proof on the government agency and includes all branches of government, colleges and universities, and any agency receiving more than 25 percent local or state public money. It creates an Office of Access to Public Records to receive requests and respond within 20 business days and oversee compliance with the law. Violators face up to a $1,000 penalty.
© 2007 Altoona Mirror; Reprinted with permission.
Forum reviews public access to documents:
Changes could occur in open records law
Oct. 17, 2007
By KIERNAN M. SCHALK
Lewistown Sentinel reporter
STATE COLLEGE — A public forum about open government and Pennsylvania’s Open Records Law had a colorful array of speakers and audience members in attendance Tuesday night.
Held at the Schlow Centre Region Library in downtown State College, it featured moderator Clay Calvert, a professor of First Amendment studies at the Pennsylvania State University. Calvert said the forum was a “unique coalition” of people who were brought together to give their opinions on the problems with and possible solutions to Pennsylvania’s open records law.
Robert Richards, Penn State professor of journalism and media law, was one of the first panelists to express concern regarding Pennsylvania’s open records policy.
“Pennsylvania’s law is considered one of the worst in the country,” Richards said of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Act.
Richards said that Pennsylvania’s current version of the law is unlike the federal law and most other states, because the Keystone State’s version starts off with the assumption that government records are not public.
There was a consensus among the members of the panel that this was the most fundamental problem with the current version of the law.
Magisterial District Judge Carmen W. Prestia added his thoughts and said a significant problem with the current law is that it’s “inconsistent.”
In addition, later in the evening, Prestia shared personal experiences he has had with requests for court documents, which are to be made available to the public in accordance with the Pennsylvania Constitution.
“The biggest problem I have had has been with my staff,” Prestia said of his staff members’ reluctance to willingly hand out records.
Prestia went on to say that he has explained to his staff that the records are open. He said staff members must provide them to the public, upon request.
Prestia added that under certain circumstances, the public may have to pay for copies if the amount of time and resources dictate that his office cannot, in good faith, incur the expense.
Other panelists who shared personal experiences in dealing with the open records law included an award-winning journalist from the Centre Daily Times, Reporter Mike Joseph.
Joseph won awards from the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association for his coverage of the Interstate 99 environmental cleanup now under way in Centre County.
Joseph said he was having a hard time acquiring some records from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. He said he hoped the documents would shed some light on how much the clean up was going cost.
Joseph said, in the past PennDOT, officials were helpful. However, now Joseph said he is having problems attaining the documents he has requested.
As the evening’s discussion continued, attorney Craig J. Staudenmaier with the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition turned to the audience with an important message for the public.
“If you leave here with nothing else, hopefully, you will contact your local legislator and tell them to pass a new open records law,” Staudenmaier said.
In a moment of irony, and as if right on cue as Staudenmaier made his statement, State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Bellefonte, walked through the door and took his seat among the panelists.
Benninghoff said the public has spoken “pretty loudly” about the current open records law and the “public wants change.”
“If it’s gonna happen this is the year,” Benninghoff said of pending legislation in both the Pennsylvania Senate and House of Representatives.
Benninghoff said he hoped the Legislature could strike a balance between the public’s right to know and the privacy of individuals.
Closing out the evening’s commentary was Kim de Bourbon, a representative from the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition. She summed up the evening’s message.
“It’s your government; you have a right to know,” she said.
© 2007 Lewistown Sentinel; Reprinted with permission.
Panel discusses access law
Oct. 17, 2007
By Anna Zagari
The Daily Collegian Staff Writer
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Centre County citizens gathered last night to discuss a disturbing idea: Laws intended to give Pennsylvania citizens access to any public records are considered by some to be the weakest in the nation.
The Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition (PaFOIC) held the open forum to inform citizens of their rights according to Pennsylvania law. The forum was held at Schlow Centre Region Library, 211 S. Allen St., with a panel of five professionals that offered their views about the Pennsylvania Open Records Law, or the Right-to-Know law.
Kim de Bourbon, executive director of PaFIOC, said she wants to inform citizens of their rights because "it's only important after it has directly affected them."
The panel included state Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, District Judge Carmine W. Prestia, Centre Daily Times reporter Mike Joseph, attorney Craig Staudenmaier, and Robert Richards, distinguished professor of journalism and law and co-director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment. The panel offered diverse opinions and personal experiences on how the Pennsylvania laws affect people in different ways.
Richards said the Right-to-Know law, which was enacted in 1957, hasn't seen any changes until recently in the new millennium. "I hate to say it, but Pennsylvania's law is one of the worst in the United States," Richards said.
Staudenmier also noted issues in the statute: one being that it assumes not all records are public, making citizens prove their need to know.
Prestia affirmed this position saying the law is "inconsistent," and he would like to see it clarified.
"There is no reason to have to go to court and litigate to get [public information]," he said.
Another issue the panel discussed is the tendency for citizens to give in to an agency's first line of defense, which is to simply deny their request for public records. Benninghoff said he would like to see a change in the mindset among citizens about their rights to public records.
The panel also discussed the need for amending the statute to coincide with issues of the present.
Benninghoff noted problems with distinguishing how to define public records.
He said electronics are making this especially difficult, and if a bill is passed to amend this distinction, it won't be permanent because of the ever-changing nature of technology.
"If this is going to happen, if we're going to see some changes, it's going to be this year," he said.
The PaFOIC began these forums earlier this month in an effort to inform citizens across the state. State College was the second destination for the coalition with their first forum held at the University of Pittsburgh.
Two other forums are scheduled in Camp Hill and Philadelphia throughout the fall.
© 2007 The Daily Collegian; Reprinted with permission.
→ READ ABOUT THE DISCUSSION AT OUR PITTSBURGH FORUM
→ READ ABOUT THE DISCUSSION AT OUR CAMP HILL FORUM