Pennsylvania Sunshine Act: Improvements needed
The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association has
written the following summary of improvements
needed in Pennsylvania's open meetings law, known
as the "Sunshine Act."
From the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
1. Burden of Proof/Presumption of openness.
The Sunshine Act must be amended, consistent with the Right to Know Law, to establish the presumption of openness and put the burden on an agency seeking
to close a particular meeting.
2. Stricter language on “work sessions” and preliminary discussions.
The Sunshine Act must explicitly apply to information-gathering, fact-finding meetings and work sessions, regardless of nomenclature: informational meetings, workshops, and pre-meetings are all subject to the Act, when a quorum is present.
Too often, agencies claim that they are engaging in "preliminary discussions," effectively cutting the public out of the most meaningful discussion on a particular
topic.
3. Technology.
The Act must be updated to account for today's technology, expressly stating that teleconferences and e-mail (or other technology-facilitated) discussions by a
quorum are included in the Act's requirements.
All discussions by a quorum must occur at an open, advertised meeting, including in-person discussions and those occurring through technological devices.
4. Executive sessions.
The law must require all agencies to keep a verbatim record of closed meetings in the form of an audio or video recording. These would generally be exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law, unless otherwise ordered by a court. This would enable a court to review an agency's actions and discussions behind closed doors.
5. Agenda.
All agencies must prepare an agenda prior to all public meetings, which must be publicly available at the agency's office and on its Web site at least 48 hours prior to a meeting.
The agenda must include any item scheduled for official action and must describe, with sufficient specificity, any executive session to be held by the agency.
6. Remedies.
The Act must clearly set forth available remedies, including that:
7. Curing.
The Act must be amended to make it clear that agencies may not "cure" every violation. Allowing "curing" in all cases creates a complete disincentive to complying with the Act in the first place.
This does not mean that curing can never be available. If an agency is able to "reset" the decision, so that it is possible to hold another meeting in compliance with the notice and other requirements and conduct a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting, then curing may be appropriate. The law must make it clear that the ability to cure is not always available, however, and that "curing" alone does not eliminate penalties for violations.
From the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
1. Burden of Proof/Presumption of openness.
The Sunshine Act must be amended, consistent with the Right to Know Law, to establish the presumption of openness and put the burden on an agency seeking
to close a particular meeting.
2. Stricter language on “work sessions” and preliminary discussions.
The Sunshine Act must explicitly apply to information-gathering, fact-finding meetings and work sessions, regardless of nomenclature: informational meetings, workshops, and pre-meetings are all subject to the Act, when a quorum is present.
Too often, agencies claim that they are engaging in "preliminary discussions," effectively cutting the public out of the most meaningful discussion on a particular
topic.
3. Technology.
The Act must be updated to account for today's technology, expressly stating that teleconferences and e-mail (or other technology-facilitated) discussions by a
quorum are included in the Act's requirements.
All discussions by a quorum must occur at an open, advertised meeting, including in-person discussions and those occurring through technological devices.
4. Executive sessions.
The law must require all agencies to keep a verbatim record of closed meetings in the form of an audio or video recording. These would generally be exempt from disclosure under the Right to Know Law, unless otherwise ordered by a court. This would enable a court to review an agency's actions and discussions behind closed doors.
5. Agenda.
All agencies must prepare an agenda prior to all public meetings, which must be publicly available at the agency's office and on its Web site at least 48 hours prior to a meeting.
The agenda must include any item scheduled for official action and must describe, with sufficient specificity, any executive session to be held by the agency.
6. Remedies.
The Act must clearly set forth available remedies, including that:
- The court has the power to grant declaratory or injunctive relief to require that a meeting be open to the public;
- any action taken in violation of the Act is voidable by the court;
- any person may seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief to prevent a future breach of the Act; and
- a court may declare a violation (and order
any appropriate penalty) even where a violation
was subsequently "cured."
▪ The current fine of $100 should be increased to assess meaningful penalties on individuals who willfully violate the Act.
7. Curing.
The Act must be amended to make it clear that agencies may not "cure" every violation. Allowing "curing" in all cases creates a complete disincentive to complying with the Act in the first place.
This does not mean that curing can never be available. If an agency is able to "reset" the decision, so that it is possible to hold another meeting in compliance with the notice and other requirements and conduct a substantial and public reconsideration of the matters considered at the original meeting, then curing may be appropriate. The law must make it clear that the ability to cure is not always available, however, and that "curing" alone does not eliminate penalties for violations.