Opinion: Citizens, not reporters, got new law's access
April 26, 2010 | Filed in: Right to Know
Law | Open
records
OPINION
By Denny Bonavita
The [Dubois] Courier-Express
Back in 2008, when the Pennsylvania Legislature was considering changes to strengthen Pennsylvania's open records law, we offered the opinion that a stronger law would be of far more benefit to ordinary Pennsylvanians than it would be to newspapers, although newspapers were among the strongest supporters of the new law.
We argued then that journalists know the levers of power and of public persuasion, while the ordinary homeowner concerned about wind turbines or gas wells being drilled nearby isn't quite as experienced.
We were correct.
In its first year of operation, Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records received 1,159 requests to act on requests for public records that elected or appointed officials had said could not be released:
Oh.
Not surprisingly, the Office of Open Records dismissed 254 of those requests, about one-fourth. Some people are just plain pests, and routinely request records that clearly ought not to be made public (ongoing criminal investigation reports, for instance, are of most value to ... drug dealers).
A cheery note: Another 350 requests were dismissed as moot, i.e., no longer relevant - usually because, rather than risk having their decision overturned, local officials in charge of the requested records reconsidered after an appeal was filed, and decided on their own (with some gentle urging), to release the records.
Also not surprisingly, nearly 30 percent of the requested appeals (about 350) were filed against school districts. Schools are the most controversial of all local governments, and their records are the most sensitive. It stands to reason that school records would be keenly scrutinized.
The Legislature and Gov. Rendell deserve credit for finally bringing Pennsylvania's open records law out of the 19th Century and into the 21st Century.
Now, about the rest of Pennsylvania's anachronistic government ... when will we have that Constitutional Convention?
By Denny Bonavita
The [Dubois] Courier-Express
Back in 2008, when the Pennsylvania Legislature was considering changes to strengthen Pennsylvania's open records law, we offered the opinion that a stronger law would be of far more benefit to ordinary Pennsylvanians than it would be to newspapers, although newspapers were among the strongest supporters of the new law.
We argued then that journalists know the levers of power and of public persuasion, while the ordinary homeowner concerned about wind turbines or gas wells being drilled nearby isn't quite as experienced.
We were correct.
In its first year of operation, Pennsylvania's Office of Open Records received 1,159 requests to act on requests for public records that elected or appointed officials had said could not be released:
- 88 came from news organizations.
- 24 such requests came from governmental officials themselves.
- 1,047 requests came from residents.
Oh.
Not surprisingly, the Office of Open Records dismissed 254 of those requests, about one-fourth. Some people are just plain pests, and routinely request records that clearly ought not to be made public (ongoing criminal investigation reports, for instance, are of most value to ... drug dealers).
A cheery note: Another 350 requests were dismissed as moot, i.e., no longer relevant - usually because, rather than risk having their decision overturned, local officials in charge of the requested records reconsidered after an appeal was filed, and decided on their own (with some gentle urging), to release the records.
Also not surprisingly, nearly 30 percent of the requested appeals (about 350) were filed against school districts. Schools are the most controversial of all local governments, and their records are the most sensitive. It stands to reason that school records would be keenly scrutinized.
The Legislature and Gov. Rendell deserve credit for finally bringing Pennsylvania's open records law out of the 19th Century and into the 21st Century.
Now, about the rest of Pennsylvania's anachronistic government ... when will we have that Constitutional Convention?