Pennsylvania Open Records Scam of New Year?

Will the dash by the Pennsylvania state legislature and re-elected for a final term governor to provide "something" for we the people quickly on an out-of-step right-to-know open records policy be the latest in a series of abusive scams?

Both chambers of the PA General Assembly are considering something on the table - word is by January or February

Push for passage of open-records bill

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2

- and something will be passed, most likely.

But what will it be? Another scam like the rebuke (after a major outcry by the citizenry) of the payraises our representatives voted themselves in the form of unvouchered expenses back in 2005? What happened with the payraise? Oh, the annointed voided them - again due to public outcry and crystal ball handwriting-on-the-wall tight, close election "returns" - but then they turned right around afterwards and "kept" the increase to their "pensions" the payraise automatically set.

While many have stated they've donated the increases in the "salary" to charity, were those one-time deals and what have they done with the increases in pensions, and what will they do later, after they retire or are booted out of office.

Not a whimper from the new crop of some 53 freshmen legislators who were largely elected to forestall and stop such shenanigans.

Instead, many "veteran" legislators such as Rep. H. William DeWeese will see a climb even further into the upper upper socioeconomic class come either retirement or replacement at the polls come the next election.

As for the newcomers, their pension numbers went up, too.

The push for open records could be another such gimmick. In fact, it's all seeming like a version of the good cop bad cop routine - in this case - parts of the House version are good, parts are bad, and parts of the Senate version are good, parts are bad.

Keep in mind, the Senate version and House version must eventually match. So what will be kept, what will go, and what will Pennsylvanians actually get? True open records or something else?

House Bill 443 presented in the General Assembly last year by Rep. Timothy Mahoney was initially rightly touted as a freshman maverick's effort to change the status quo.

Little arm-twisting was needed to convince leadership which remained after the election to support an update in the public records laws, which historically have not applied to the General Assembly, since more than a couple of the long-term leaders were kicked out of office.

Such as DeWeese became converted champions of open records revamping - for the 21st Century, of course. For a new, reform-minded Pennsylvania, of course.

When the details of the Mahoney bill were revealed, however, watchdog commentators across the state became more than wary. One tagged the bill the Corruption Protection Act because it didn't apply to opening up "past" public records, and after its further alteration in the state government committee where additional amendments were applied.

Critics including us were vocal across the internet, in opinion pieces, even largely supportive print news media ventured a few jabs when legislative emails became a category "closed" to public inspection.

The Newspaper Association of Pennsylvania pulled its support from the Mahoney bill entirely.

See our previous informative post which has gone unnoted in print newspapers across the state and locally.

PA Newspaper Publishers Association Retract Support for Open Records (Corruption Protection)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-newspaper-publishers-retract-support.html

The wheels are still moving to bring Pennsylvanians some form of open records legislation. But what will it actually do?

Do we want it all accessible to us in one fell swoop, or are we willing to settle for bits and pieces?

According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Senate passed Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester.

the bill reverses the longtime presumption that most records should be closed to the public and news media. The new presumption is that most records are open, unless an agency can make a valid case for not releasing them. But there is no such openness for records of the Legislature or judicial branch of government...

the bill requires the Legislature to provide 17 different kinds of records, including all financial records, committee meeting minutes, recorded votes and audits of the Legislature.

His bill is based on what is done in New York state, which has been ranked among the top three states in the United States by the University of Florida's Citizen Access Project, which monitors public access laws, he said.

The bill exempts e-mails and letters between legislators and constituents from release.

Executive branch agencies whose records would be presumed as public include the governor's office, attorney general, state treasurer, auditor general, and independent and state-affiliated agencies such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, State System of Higher Education and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Also, the top 25 salaries of officials at state-related schools would be public.

The Senate bill contains 28 exceptions, or types of information that don't have to be released, including homeland security, national defense, computer hardware or software, a person's Social Security number and medical information, a company's trade secrets, autopsy reports, certain real estate appraisals, labor negotiation strategy and criminal investigations.

Ms. Henning said some exceptions are too broad, such as noncriminal investigative information.

The Senate bill has another important provision: creating a new state agency to oversee the process of granting access to records and to hear appeals if access is denied. The Open Records Clearinghouse would appoint appeals officers for each executive branch department and provide training in the new law for employees of all executive branch agencies and local governments...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm

Here's the glowing this is just great Senate rundown

Senator Pileggi's Open Records Bill Approved by Senate; SB 1 Moves to House for Consideration

http://www.pasenategop.com/news/archived/2007/1107/pileggi-112807.htm

Senate Bill 1

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2007&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0001&pn=0772

The P-G article says the Mahoney bill reassigned as House bill 2072 was adopted by the State Government Committee November 28, 2007.

The P-G article

Meanwhile yesterday, the House State Government Committee voted 27-0 for its own version of an open records law, House Bill 2072, proposed by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fayette. It's similar to the Senate bill, but has at least one major difference. It treats all four government groups -- executive branch, legislature, courts and local agencies -- the same, presuming that most records are open. The House wouldn't exempt the Legislature and the courts from this stricter standard, as the Senate bill does...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm

Hold on a minute now. With either legislation, we still have to convince somebody that what we want IS A PUBLIC RECORD. There are still "exemptions."

The process might go a bit smoother, with some records already highlighted as accessible and the presumption "those" records are open, but there are still exemptions and we will be denied access to those. There will still be somebody else who will tell us this record is okay for you to see, but this one isn't.

Not only that, the Pileggi bill which passed the Senate with all but one lone nay vote doesn't fully apply to our illustrious champions of open records.

Can you believe it?

Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, voted "yes" on the bill, even though he didn't like the fact that it doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm

Seriously, Pennsylvanians, wake up and smell the scamoffee. The bill "doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies."

The one liner is there in black and white thanks to at least one state Senator, Jim Ferlo, but even with that, Ferlo voted yes on the bill.

Go figure.

All to appease us, that's why anything anything will pass even though it's a fraud.

Pennsylvanians surely don't want another scam, do they?

Maybe they do.

Maybe they will settle for more of the same scamsters? Different hair, eyes, noses, mouths, same two faces?

Notice what's the definition of "record"

"Record." Any document maintained by an agency, in any form, whether public or not.

Now notice what's the definition of "public record"

http://www.pa-newspaper.org/web/2005/10/right_to_know.aspx

Get it, yet?

The elected representatives can deem anything "they" want to come under the term "public" "record" and anything they don't want such as records created in the "past," or electronic mail with somebody's real name on it or in it, or even a fake name... well you get the idea.

And then there's our Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Settling for less to get something, anything in 2008 so they can tout their efforts paid off.

And then there are even the intrepid reformers and organizations pressing for open records for Pennsylvania. Settling for less to get their organization credit for pushing so-o-o hard for change to an antiquated open records policy.

Still, among them, many support the Pileggi bill even though it doesn't fully apply to the legislature and judicial branches of state government. Go figure.

Some appear to support the effort with further recommendations.

Still, there are issues to be hammered out. The law should be retroactive. It should encompass legislators' e-mails, with some protections for privacy, such as personal information that could lead to identity theft. (However, phone numbers and birth dates don't meet that criteria.) The open records office, which would handle inquiries and complaints, should be part of the state Ethics Commission, where it is likely to be a more independent watchdog than a bureau in another department.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2

Even though the Mahoney bill applies to the legislature, there are those pesky directives - nope - you can't see past records (which weren't covered previously), you can't see legislative emails.

The broader access would apply to past, present, and future executive branch and local government records because those parts of government were covered by the state’s current open records law. The expanded access to legislative and judicialrecords, however, would only apply in future cases, since they are not covered by the current law...

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:rQgh4T5Uu8kJ:www.publicaffairsmgt.com/pubs/CapitolCommentary.pdf+pennsylvania+open+records+senate+bill+exemptions&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=32&gl=us

And establishing an agency under the state Ethics Commission which has been historically silent on any past legislative infractions is a bit like letting Pirates of the Caribbean "Jack Sparrow" guard your yacht's hidden vault.

Guess who appoints members to the Commission, he he.

http://www.ethics.state.pa.us/ethics/cwp/view.asp?A=3&Q=127907

http://www.ncsl.org/programs/ethics/ethics_commissions.htm

Maybe we shouldn't elect judges either, we should just let the state legislators pick them from among those on their "good" boys list.

Note there's no conflict-of-interest with former state representatives appointed to the Commission by incumbent legislators.

Really now, isn't this transparent. The House retains some good and some bad and the Senate retains some good and some bad. Like the good cop and the bad cop - they banter back and forth.

What will be presented to us in the end? Something many will settle for because hey, it's better than nothing. It's a start, according to Rep. Mahoney.

If it isn't right, it's a start that shouldn't finish.

As for the Express Times editorial's ending:

The House and Senate are within a few heartbeats of agreement. The House sent an unambiguous message when it cast a unanimous vote on this. Still, there's no telling what palliatives might seep in when leaders or conferees put the final grind on the sausage.

This is a watershed moment for all Pennsylvanians -- especially those who don't have the time and energy to follow the workings of the ruling class, but care deeply about the policies, taxes and regulations that trickle down and affect their lives. The next few weeks is a good time to draft an e-mail, write a letter or place a phone call to one's senator and House member.

Ask them to open things up.

Ask them to go the distance.

http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/expresstimes/index.ssf?/base/news-1/1198818340263530.xml&coll=2

Unless open records "reform" includes all records (of course exempting "private" social security numbers, and obviously private information and material regarding state or national security - though who knows what all that might include) it is a sham.

Calling it anything more is a disservice to the public.

And citizen owners of the state of Pennsylvania set the agenda. It is we who tell them open it all up or go back home. We're tired of the same old, same old, even though there are a few dozen new faces.

Don't ask, tell.

Reprinted here for discussion purposes only.

House, Senate advance versions of open records law
Thursday, November 29, 2007
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Citizens groups and General Assembly critics often cite a 2002 study that branded Pennsylvania's open records law as the 48th worst in the nation.

State legislators hate hearing that statistic, so both the Senate and a House committee took action yesterday to improve the situation.

Senate members voted 48-1 in favor of Senate Bill 1, sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester. He said the bill, which now goes to the House, will make many state and local government records more accessible to the public than they are now.

"Pennsylvania needs a strong open records law to encourage transparency in government and increase the public's confidence," said Mr. Pileggi.

Legislators know that procedural changes are needed to counteract two years of public complaints over the now-repealed pay raises they gave themselves and the large bonuses given last year to legislative staffers.

"The word 'reform' has been uttered often over the past year," said Mr. Pileggi. "There is no reform that comes close to matching a good open records law."

He dealt with several outside groups in fashioning the bill, including Common Cause/Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

PNA legal counsel Teri Henning said that while the bill isn't all she'd like, "it's a positive step for Pennsylvania in terms of access to open records. It's an improvement and not an insignificant one."


Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, voted "yes" on the bill, even though he didn't like the fact that it doesn't subject the Legislature itself and the courts to the same strict open records standard that's imposed on executive branch and local agencies.

For those latter two groups, the bill reverses the longtime presumption that most records should be closed to the public and news media. The new presumption is that most records are open, unless an agency can make a valid case for not releasing them. But there is no such openness for records of the Legislature or judicial branch of government.

For that reason, Sen. Vincent Fumo, D-Philadelphia, was the lone "no" vote.

"He didn't feel the bill went far enough," said spokesman Gary Tuma. "If we're going to strong open records law it should apply broadly."

Mr. Pileggi said the bill requires the Legislature to provide 17 different kinds of records, including all financial records, committee meeting minutes, recorded votes and audits of the Legislature.

His bill is based on what is done in New York state, which has been ranked among the top three states in the United States by the University of Florida's Citizen Access Project, which monitors public access laws, he said.

The bill exempts e-mails and letters between legislators and constituents from release.

Executive branch agencies whose records would be presumed as public include the governor's office, attorney general, state treasurer, auditor general, and independent and state-affiliated agencies such as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, State System of Higher Education and Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Also, the top 25 salaries of officials at state-related schools would be public.

The Senate bill contains 28 exceptions, or types of information that don't have to be released, including homeland security, national defense, computer hardware or software, a person's Social Security number and medical information, a company's trade secrets, autopsy reports, certain real estate appraisals, labor negotiation strategy and criminal investigations.

Ms. Henning said some exceptions are too broad, such as noncriminal investigative information.

The Senate bill has another important provision: creating a new state agency to oversee the process of granting access to records and to hear appeals if access is denied. The Open Records Clearinghouse would appoint appeals officers for each executive branch department and provide training in the new law for employees of all executive branch agencies and local governments.

Meanwhile yesterday, the House State Government Committee voted 27-0 for its own version of an open records law, House Bill 2072, proposed by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Fayette. It's similar to the Senate bill, but has at least one major difference. It treats all four government groups -- executive branch, legislature, courts and local agencies -- the same, presuming that most records are open. The House wouldn't exempt the Legislature and the courts from this stricter standard, as the Senate bill does.

Bureau Chief Tom Barnes can be reached at tbarnes@post-gazette.com or 717-787-4254.
First published on November 29, 2007 at 12:00 am
..

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07333/837647-85.stm

Public-access bill passes Pa. Senate; clash with House foreseen

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20071128_Public-access_bill_passes_Pa__Senate__clash_with_House_foreseen.html

Pittsburgh Tribune Review clip

Pa. Senate OKs change to open records bill
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Wednesday, November 28, 2007


HARRISBURG -- State Sen. Jim Ferlo said Tuesday he voted against an open records provision because it fails to put the Legislature under the Right to Know law.
"To me it is a shell of a bill," said Ferlo, D-Highland Park.

The Senate voted 46-3 in approving an amendment to an open records bill -- S.B. 1 -- sponsored by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County. Supporters said it was largely a technical amendment. It clarifies, for example, that police blotters and traffic reports are public records.

The bill will be considered for final passage today. It would need House approval.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/state/s_540016.html

Sunday, October 28, 2007
Senate Open Records Reform: Good, But Can Be Better

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/newsreleases/senate-open-records-reform-good-can-be-better



Open Records PA site includes info about Senate and House versions and links to bills

http://www.openrecordspa.org/

Open records reform: Pa. in a crisis of access
By Teri Henning

http://spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/archive/2006/12/12/3695.aspx

Student Voices opinions

http://www.student-voices.org/Pennsylvania/SpeakOutDiscussion.aspx?Id=647

editorial clip

Philadelphia Inquirer
Posted on Mon, Dec. 17, 2007
Editorial | Open-Records Law

Despite the recent improvements, aspects of the legislation still need to be fixed.

For example, lobbyists could be exempt from record requests under an overly broad section that protects legislators' constituents from invasions of privacy. Taxpayers should be able to better watch the influence peddlers.

Enforcement must also be beefed up. The House unfortunately rejected a "three strikes" provision that could have punished elected officials and government bureaucrats who repeatedly stymie citizens' access to public records.

And a provision should be scuttled that exempts birthdates from disclosure. Legislators cite concerns about identity theft. But there are already many public documents containing this basic information, and it's a standard piece of data for people - including journalists - to verify someone's identity.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071217_Editorial___Open-Records_Law.html