Wednesday, January 30, 2008

PA Open Records Reform: Exemption Central

No mention in Records Reform Advances Herald-Standard Kori Walter or in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review posted AP articleState Senate Poised to Vote on Open Records Bill concerning legislative emails.

We'll have to wait and see what the state Senate has offered in full.

The House bill rested largely on the original proposal by freshman state Representative Timothy Mahoney.

Mahoney's bill did not apply the access to past records.

Pennsylvania pushes to open records By Brad Bumsted Tribune Review Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Advocates are concerned about a provision in Mahoney's bill that would limit release to future records, Wilson said.


During an October press conference Mahoney is quoted saying "we don't need any more investigations."

His bill contained the exemption for a certain segment of legislative electronic communications. We've questioned this since our post Tuesday, October 16, 2007 Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions.

The original bill HB 443 under the exemption clause read:

Section 302 Access Generally (a) Enumerated Exemptions
(24) Electronic mail...

provided that the electronic mail does not contain the discussion of the spending of public money or the duties and powers of the office, officeholder, or agency.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=0443&pn=0813


In an Herald-Standard article Frustrated, Larry Roberts plans run for office, Rep. Mahoney is reported justifying the exemption for some legislative emails:

Frustrated, Larry Roberts plans run for office
By Jennifer Harr, Herald-Standard
01/26/2008

Mahoney said his open records legislation would allow the opening of the contents of e-mails that deal with money or state business, but not the contents of private e-mails from constituents to their legislators.

"That's probably the most important issue in the state of Pennsylvania because we're dealing with $27 billion annually," Mahoney said.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19234474&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6


In House panel debates parameters of open records
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/19/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

...In addition to criticizing the process, Kauffman and others found flaws in the legislation.

Although the bill would apply to the Legislature for the first time, lawmakers added language that would keep all state and local government officials' e-mail messages private.

A previous version of the legislation would have given the public access to only e-mail messages related to spending taxpayer money.

Kauffman said the e-mail provision could have been written more narrowly to exempt some correspondence between lawmakers and their constituents.

"It's absurd to just say all e-mail is out," he said.

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association also complained that the bill includes unprecedented exemptions and permits state and local agencies to subjectively deny burdensome requests for documents and other information.

"We believe that as written, this proposal would provide less access than is available under today's Right to Know Law," said Deborah L. Musselman, the association's lobbyist.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18929586&brd=2280&pag=461&dept_id=480247


Action which took place regarding Babette Josephs amendment and subsequent votes remains puzzling. Brad Bumsted's article reads:

Shhh! More state secrets By Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published Sunday, November 11, 2007 notes

Rep. Babette Josephs, chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, last month offered an amendment to remove what the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association calls a "blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443. The Philadelphia Democrat's amendment was defeated 127-69 with seven members excused...

... Here is how your House members voted on the Josephs amendment. A "yes" vote would have made lawmakers' e-mail available (if approved finally). A "no" vote scuttled her amendment and maintained the status quo:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/bumsted/s_537390.html


Read down the list to see who voted Nay. H. William DeWeese. At odds with members of the Democratic delegation which represents portions of the same county as DeWeese.

Including Yay votes of Timothy Mahoney, Deberah Kula, and Peter Daley.

A "yes" vote would have made lawmakers' e-mail available (if approved finally).

That effort failed.

The Philadelphia Democrat's amendment was defeated 127-69 with seven members excused.

A subsequent amendment may have passed, and we only find this current comment by Rep. Timothy Mahoney in a recent Herald-Standard article:

his open records legislation would allow the opening of the contents of e-mails that deal with money or state business, but not the contents of private e-mails from constituents to their legislators


Bumsted's report includes the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association assailing the House Bill 443:

"what the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association calls a blanket exemption for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443."

Our report notes the chronology of when Wednesday, October 24, 2007
PA Newspaper Publishers Retract Support for Open Records (Corruption Protection Act)


An October 17 Kori Walter report is entitled

Proposal exempts correspondence from public review
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/17/2007 Updated 10/17/2007 12:16:00 AM EDT

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18924529&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6


We can't help but point out that the Observor-Reporter's commentary and the Herald-Standard's commentary as exerpted and linked from Tube City Almanac site, appears to be completely opposite to the Brad Bumsted commentary Shhh! More state secrets By Brad Bumsted
Pittsburgh Tribune-Review published Sunday, November 11, 2007
concerning the email exemptions and the proposed Babette Josephs amendment.

The Bumsted commentary says the Josephs bill was rectifying the situation of what the PNA called 'blanket' exemptions for legislative emails with a Yea vote.

According to Bumsted's report, Mahoney, Kula, and Daley voted yes, while DeWeese voted nay?

The Josephs amendment at that time made the e-mails "available."

Three area representatives voted for that, while DeWeese voted against it.

A Sentinel Online article Lawmakers say open-records bill better, but flawed November 4, 2007 appears to refer to the Babette Josephs amendment as the defeat stats are the same.

Legislators debated nearly 100 amendments for 13 hours Tuesday before finishing changes to House Bill 443, which would overhaul the 50-year-old open-records law.

But the bill still contains exemptions for all e-mail communications, correspondence between legislators and other public officials and would not apply to records.

The exemption for all e-mail, in particular, has angered some area lawmakers.

“It’s a Mack Truck loophole,” said state Rep. William Gabig, R-199.

Officials could use the loophole to hide records in e-mail, he said. If government officials send official records via e-mail, Gabig said, they should be public...

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/11/04/news/news606.txt


Rep. Mahoney - current explanation on the open records bill

Mahoney said his open records legislation would allow the opening of the contents of e-mails that deal with money or state business, but not the contents of private e-mails from constituents to their legislators

Given Rep. Tim Mahoney's recent terse explanation of what emails will and will not be exempted from sunshine, open government records, we're left to question:

What kind of money? From whom? Lobbyists? To whom? What kind of state business? With whom, lobbyists? Staff employees?

In other words, what will become the definition of "money," "state business," "private," and "constituents" in the final legislation?

One state recently made all government e-mails public records.

Why can't PA. Simply redact constituents' names in the event of personal e-mails, as Bumsted suggests.

Better yet. Set up a personal corner of your home with your own laptop you pay for and obtain a personal email account you pay for on your own time and dime, and use after your day-work hours, and we the public won't have access to that, will we? Or carry your personal laptop around with you, and access your personal email from there, during a lunch or dinner break while you're there in Harrisburg serving the people while you're being served exquisite lunches and dinners at nearby 10 star restaurants.

Better still. Let's pool all our federal tax rebate money and local school property tax windfall we're going to get back and start a public servants' e-cafe.

How much we get will depend on the definition of money and windfall.

(Net the Truth Online)

Resources

Babette Josephs

http://www.babette.org/PoliOpen-1177.html

Shhh! More state secrets
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Sunday, November 11, 2007

HARRISBURG
You've got mail!

But odds are it will not be from your state legislator.

The state House has voted preliminarily to keep members' e-mail secret. A final vote on the House bill -- ironically called "open-records reform" -- is expected this week.

Rep. Babette Josephs, chairwoman of the House State Government Committee, last month offered an amendment to remove what the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association calls a "blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443. The Philadelphia Democrat's amendment was defeated 127-69 with seven members excused.
An official of the National Conference of State Legislatures, testifying before a special House panel earlier this year, said 33 states consider e-mail to be a matter of public record.

Pennsylvania legislators says they oppose release of their e-mail because confidential communications from constituents might be revealed to the public. They talk about this almost as if they are lawyers protecting the rights of their clients to privacy or priests upholding the sanctity of confession.

Please. Did they ever hear of redaction? They could provide in the law for deletion of a constituent's name in a personal matter. By and large, citizens are writing about issues and legislation or problems in the legislator's district.

What Joe Six Pack tells his legislator is rarely newsworthy.

Are they afraid we'll see conversations that are political, not issue-based? Are they worried about Bonusgate, the attorney general's probe of bonuses to legislative staffers allegedly in return for off-staff campaign work?

If they have nothing to hide, what's the big deal about seeing their e-mail? We're paying for the computers, the phone bills, their time (salary), their office rent, lights, perks -- the works.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/bumsted/s_537390.html


Records reform advances
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
01/29/2008

HARRISBURG - The state Senate could vote as early as today on a bill giving the public greater access to records generated by all levels of government in Pennsylvania.

The state Senate Rules Committee voted 14-1 on Monday night to approve an overhaul of the state's 50 year-old open records bill.

Sen. Vincent Fumo, a Philadelphia Democrat, was the lone dissenting vote.

House and Senate leaders have been negotiating for more than a month to settle differences between open records proposals from each chamber...

...Deborah L. Musselman, a lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, she was pleased that the Senate proposal would keep dates of birth on government documents public.

"We hope the House will concur on that change," she said.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19240509&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6


State senate poised to vote on open records bill
By The Associated Press
Tuesday, January 29, 2008

HARRISBURG -- The Senate on Monday readied a rewrite of Pennsylvania's open records law for a vote as senators look for ways to compromise with a House version that passed six weeks ago.
The Senate Rules Committee approved an amended bill, 14-1, and set it up for a potential vote today by the full Senate.

House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, expressed confidence yesterday that the chambers would send a final version to Gov. Ed Rendell for his signature this week.

In general, the Senate and House versions are designed to subject more records to public review and give citizens a better chance in court when challenging a government rejection of an open records request.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/state/s_549772.html


Lawmakers upbeat on open records reform
Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard January 21, 2008

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?dept_id=480247&PAG=461&newsid=19216138

Legislature wants open records bill passed soon

By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times

HARRISBURG — Although the state Senate did not act on a proposal strengthening Pennsylvania's open records law last week, legislative leaders remain optimistic legislation will be sent to Gov. Ed Rendell by the end of the month.

Public access to county coroners' autopsy reports and arbitration documents for public school teachers involved in labor disputes are among the issues that need to be resolved, said Deborah Musselman, a lobbyist for the Pennsylvania Newspapers Association.

Autopsy information and arbitration awards are considered public records and available to the public under current law.

However, the state House of Representatives sent the Senate an open records bill in December that would block access to autopsy reports.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-01242008-1476440.html


Today (Possibly) Is Open Records Day. October 29, 2007

Among the association's complaints: a never-before recognized ''privilege,'' or exemption, for all correspondence and related documents between legislators and their constituents, and an exemption for all correspondence and records between public officials and agencies. The group also objected to a provision that would allow a government agency to reject a request for information judged to be too onerous or burdensome.

The meeting also angered lawmakers, who complained they hadn't had time to digest the blizzard of amendments.

In the Senate, Pileggi's bill is expected to be amended to include the same ''flip of presumption" language as in the House bill. The Senate bill also expands current law to include the Legislature and its associated agencies.

http://blogs.mcall.com/capitol_ideas/2007/10/today-possibly-.html


Lawmakers say open-records bill better, but flawed
By Alex Roarty, Sentinel Reporter, aroarty@cumberlink.com
Last updated: Sunday, November 4, 2007 12:47 AM EDT

A bill created in the state House last week aimed at reforming Pennsylvania’s much-criticized open-records law has an array of loopholes, inconsistencies and mistakes, according to Cumberland County state lawmakers.

Harsh criticism, but open-record advocates go a step farther — they say the bill could actually further restrict the public’s access to government records.

Legislators debated nearly 100 amendments for 13 hours Tuesday before finishing changes to House Bill 443, which would overhaul the 50-year-old open-records law.

Lawmakers agree the biggest change would be the so-called “flip of presumption,” which would make all government records public unless specifically exempted.

The amendments also removed language that would allow state agencies to deny any requests that are “burdensome” and mandated that a panel resolving public-record disputes would be appointed by the state ethics commission.

But the bill still contains exemptions for all e-mail communications, correspondence between legislators and other public officials and would not apply to records.

The exemption for all e-mail, in particular, has angered some area lawmakers...

All other area House members agreed that the law needs to protect some form of e-mail communication between their constituents and themselves. The measure was defeated 127 to 69.

The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, in a press release, said Pennsylvania would be the only state in the country to exempt all e-mail from public access.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2007/11/04/news/news606.txt


This material was updated upon review (March 1, 2008)

No comments: