PA House Leader DeWeese No Questions on Open Records Email Blanket Exemptions

Update July 4, 2008

bonus-gate

Friday, July 04, 2008
PA Indictments Coming Coming Coming

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/07/pa-indictments-coming-coming-coming.html

Friday, July 04, 2008
Pennsylvania Politics Grand Jury Casino License? More Coming?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/07/pennsylvania-politics-grand-jury-casino.html

Update

Bonus-gate with links to news articles

http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?cat=178

Update new find

2008 – Deja or Vu ?
by Sylvia Baylor
...Shortly after the deadline for last month’s issue, news surfaced that 20 to 30 boxes of documents had been shredded that contained Democratic time sheets and compensatory time records. Such records would have been particularly useful to the Attorney General Corbett grand jury which is investigating whether last year’s $4 million in staffer bonuses is connected to campaign work.

Although the records are gone, news that the grand jury probe would widen to include obstruction of justice charges put the smell of blood in the water. Shortly thereafter, 22 Democrats approached majority leader DeWeese to complain about the progressive social content of the remaining bills to be voted on in 2007, in particular, emergency contraception and gun control. So to mollify that faction, the offending measures were pulled from the schedule, which left pretty much only open-records reform to vote on. On the appointed day for the vote, 16 of the 17 members of the Black Caucus, all Democrats, walked out of the House to protest of the lack of gun control legislation.

Meanwhile, Chadwick Associates, who were originally hired in March to teach ethics to the House, and later had their mission changed to one of risk management consultants who recommended the firings of seven high level Democrat staffers, recently got a new assignment. It seems that roughly 31,000 e-mails detailing the relationship of bonus payments to campaign work, (some with spreadsheets to do the actual calculations) never were completely erased as everyone thought, and Chadwick Associates was tasked to sort through them and organize them for the grand jury.

http://commonsense2.com/2008/01/the-keystone-scorecard/2008-%E2%80%93-deja-or-vu/

Posted on Tue, May. 13, 2008
Taxpayer bill in Pa.'s Bonusgate grows
By Mario F. Cattabiani
Inquirer Staff Writer


http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080513_Taxpayer_bill_in_Pa__s_Bonusgate_grows.html

A political reformer's rise and fall
Mike Veon undone by the things he went to Harrisburg to change
Sunday, June 29, 2008
By Dennis B. Roddy, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08181/893447-454.stm

We've entitled this post: PA House Leader DeWeese No Questions on Open Records Email Blanket Exemptions. What the post is primarily all about is a NO! vote in the state House of Representatives cast by H. William DeWeese. Here's why and what prompted the post at this time.

Over at the Greene County Messenger, in headlines (and archived articles) regarding state politics, the news org gives readers an opportunity to keep track of Pennsylvania House Majority leader H. William DeWeese. We should be grateful, and we are.

Yep, readers can continue from now to who knows when to easily follow along news reports from way back about DeWeese and "bonus-gate" and property tax reform promises, seeing the light on more accessible open records and the reform bandwagon, and more.

Included in the listing of archived news reports, the title of the most recent: Scant details emerge on DeWeese trip Monday, March 24 12:55 p.m.

Scant details is an understatement.

The archives include articles from farther back, and we'll be getting to that.

Although the url for the archives uses the Herald Standard's name, it's actually the Greene County Messenger.

Only one archived article is about DeWeese's political opponent come the Fall election, Greg Hopkins, a Republican.

Our intention is to show that from way back when, up to this point, and going into the April Primary election, DeWeese has never been asked a particular question about one of the most revealing votes in his 30-year political career.

Here's the headline we're getting to for special notice:

Herald-Standard editors interview DeWeese regarding "Bonusgate" (View Video)

The Herald-Standard video is still available by way of the Greene County Messanger site. The link shows an interview of DeWeese by Herald Standard editorial board members occurring in January 2008.

Herald-Standard editors interview DeWeese regarding "Bonusgate"
By: 01/14/2008 Updated 01/24/2008 02:53:33 PM EST

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/tab4.cfm?newsid=19196939&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=624169&rfi=6

mms://a970.v0347829.c34782.g.vm.akamaistream.net/7/970/34782/0/partner.video.syndication.msn.com/ft/share0/6171/5353B825/jandeweese.wmv

To put our renewed interest in the availability of this particular video in perspective, remember a few months back, we posed the question:

Was DeWeese ever asked during any interview why he voted "NO!" (around mid-October, 2007) on an amendment proposed by Rep. Babette Josephs when all other reps representing a part of Fayette County voted yes?

We're still asking that one, and a few other questions. The reason we want to bring to attention the video that remains on the Greene County Messenger news site:

No question has been asked about as we said, one of the most revealing NO! votes in the 30-year plus political career of H. William DeWeese.

The Babette Josephs' amendment in the PA House - according to the Tribune Review's Brad Bumstead - in an article entitled "Shhh! More State Secrets (Nov. 11, 2007) - would have removed the "blanket exemptions" for emails in the open records reform bill continued to be known as House Bill 443.

Remember the House State Government Committee which handled all measures seeking to deal with open records legislation settled on one, freshman legislator Tim Mahoney's original legislation on open records, House Bill 443?

The Mahoney legislation known as House Bill 443 was introduced March 13, 2007. Keep that in mind.

We tracked DeWeese's co-sponsorship for Mahoney's version of the bill as well. DeWeese signed on as co-sponsor in April, 2007.

Recall, the original Mahoney open records bill did not apply to past records.

That's important to note as things unfold chronologically here.

Our coverage included such information in this post:

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
PA Open Records Reform: Exemption Central

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-open-records-reform-exemption.html

We referenced:

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

Lawmakers said they are working on the exemptions to records that would be publicly released, such as those containing trade secrets, Social Security numbers, credit reports and details of ongoing police investigations.

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

Any records from the past would be covered by existing law, Mahoney said. "Why do we want to go backward when we should go forward?" he said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_532821.html

We repeat here for flow of this post the words of Tim Mahoney regarding his own bill.

During an October press conference (held Monday October 15, 2007 at the Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg, PA )Mahoney is quoted saying "we don't need any more investigations."

In our previous post, October 16, 2007 Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions we criticized:

Well, the news media failed us again. Really, if you are going to ask a legislator to explain his or her position, and he or she doesn't, you press further to get a decent answer. (press, that's one reason they're called The Press)

That didn't happen with the questioning of Rep. Timothy Mahoney. He wasn't asked why past "investigations" in Pennsylvania history SHOULD BE EXEMPTED from sunshine.

He wasn't pressed to answer why the legislation should only apply to records from the time of enactment of the bill, if that was his meaning.

What reason could there possibly be to suppress anything so long as there would not be a so-called "immediate" national or state security risk to divulge?

Representative Mahoney should have been questioned further by the same group of newspaper reporters and editors who support full open records. (barring security concerns)

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

The original Mahoney bill HB 443 contained the exemption for a certain segment of legislative electronic communications.

In our post PA Open Records Reform: Exemption Central we continue to note and stress:

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

We continue to raise questions about the House votes of DeWeese and Mahoney on Rep. Babette Josephs' amendment, which are apparently at odds with each other.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-open-records-reform-exemption.html

Apparently, during its proceedings the House State Government Committee(SGC) did not remove language from the Mahoney bill regarding "past records," thus continuing an exemption or non-application of the new open records reform bill to past records. (This was changed in the Senate Bill 1 later introduced by Senator Pileggi.)

The House SGC added language to Mahoney's bill regarding Mahoney's partial exemption for e-mail communications.

Thus not only did House SGC action seek narrowing a bill which already included 2-dozen exemptions, according to Tim Potts, but it sought enabling "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications.

October 22, 2007 Pennsylvania open-records bill gutted with last-minute amendments

http://www.spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/archive/2007/10/22/8994.aspx

It remains unclear when exactly Democracy Rising PA's Tim Potts tagged the bill, the Corruption Protection Act. Potts wasn't pleased with the Mahoney bill's some "two-dozen exemptions" in comparison with another state's requirements, or Mahoney's dismissing opening past records.

The Bud Angst Report Open Records Reform On Road To Becoming Latest Legislative Failure we've come across notes the October 15, 2007 Press conference and references Potts.

As we reported in PA Newspaper Publishers Retract Support for Open Records (Corruption Protection Act)(October 24, 2007) the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association pulled its support from HB 443.

Apparently, this was shortly after State Government Committee action.

As Brad Bumstead reported as clearly as possible in our opinion - the Newspaper Publisher Association pulled its support from HB 443, and according to Bumstead, the NPA referenced the email communication exemption as "blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443.

Bumstead's article is dated November 11, 2007 and he references action that took place on the Babette Josephs' amendment as occurring last month. That would have placed such action in October, 2007.

That's in keeping with when the PA Newspaper Publisher Association retracted its support.

Keep the chronology in mind, it will be important to understanding why we're questioning as we are.

After pulling its support from HB 443, The PNA put their considerable weight behind Senator Pileggi's bill in-the-works, pushing seriously for several key changes which Pileggi quickly adopted in his legislation. Once Pileggi made those changes, some major such as applying the open records to the legislature, the PNA then put its full support behind the Pileggi bill.

It was during this time period, before Pileggi's bill made its own necessary alterations, state Rep. DeWeese went around the state promoting the House version of open records reform bill HB 443. More often than not, state Representative Tim Mahoney was side-by-side with Rep. DeWeese.

While the House version did apply to the state legislature, enabled the presumption all records are open, with exceptions, and placed the burden of rejecting requests on the state agencies and government entities, the original version, again, did not apply to past records. (only those records were to be covered that occurred after the bill's implementation and in the future)

After SGC action, as well, there was "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications.

Apparently these events occur during October, 2007.

Why didn't H. William DeWeese support the Babette Josephs' amendment in the House version in October 2007 which would have removed the "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications?

Another question stands, but it is answerable. What was in the DeWeese-supported House version of open records that DeWeese wanted to remain even after an attempt was made to remove the section?

"blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443

And one could say leaving past records closed to the public as no House action reversed the exclusion.

Was DeWeese ever asked why he voted "NO" on Babette Josephs' amendment, when representatives Mahoney, Kula, and Daley voted Yes?

(Shhh! More State Secrets)

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

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-open-records-reform-exemption.html

In other words, why was Rep. DeWeese willing to retain the "blanket exemptions" for e-mail communications in the revised House Bill 443, when the original sponsor of HB 443, Timothy Mahoney was not willing to retain the "blanket exemptions for e-mail communications?

Deberah Kula, Peter Daley, and Timothy Mahoney all voted "yes" for Josephs' amendment, which would have removed the "blanket exemptions for e-mail communications.

Now we can watch over and over again what happened during a January, 2008 Herald-Standard interview.

From it we can determine that not one question is asked of DeWeese to explain one of the most revealing "NO!" votes of DeWeese's 30-year plus political career.

A NO! vote packed in among those which were responsible for defeating Babette Josephs' amendment that would have removed "blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail in House Bill 443.

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

Had the Babette Josephs' House amendment passed, it would have removed language from the State Government Committee's version of HB 443 that enabled "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications.

A "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications including possibily some legislative e-emails which became the subject of an PA Attorney General investigation.

Can we really believe, news editors around the state who interviewed DeWeese about bonus-gate emails after October, 2007, were not aware of DeWeese's NO! vote on Rep. Babette Josephs' amendment. They were simply unaware that DeWeese's NO! vote was diametrically opposed to the Yes votes of fellow representatives Timothy Mahoney, Deberah Kula, and Peter Daley regarding the most major piece of legislation to come PA's way for some 30 years?

Will H. William DeWeese face even one question about his NO! vote and his motivation to want a House-crafted open records bill that retained "blanket exemptions" for email communications that just happenstance might have applied to "legislative" email messages and might have just happenstance encompassed email communications perhaps central the state Attorney General's investigation of what later became known as "bonus-gate." ??

E-mails show how Dems tied staffers' bonuses to campaign work Sunday, December 16, 2007 By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07350/842079-85.stm

More subpoenas, more details in Pa. bonus probe Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 14, 2007

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/breaking/news_breaking/20071013_More_subpoenas__more_details_in_Pa__bonus_probe.html

Why did DeWeese vote NO! on the Babette Josephs amendment which would have eliminated the "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications?

And remember, it took Senator Pileggi's Senate Bill 1 to reject the "blanket exemption" for lawmakers' e-mail and to apply the new open records requirements to past records as well as current and future records.

See the Feb. 12, 2008 and Jan. articles concerning Senate version including its 'retroactive' application.

Posted on Tue, Feb. 12, 2008
Accord seen near on Pa. open-records bill
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

The law would not take effect until Jan. 1. The bill's supporters said they needed that time to allow agencies and the legislature to implement the rules and hire additional staff. The law would be retroactive and cover records already collected by government agencies.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080212_Accord_seen_near_on_Pa__open-records_bill.html

Posted on Thu, Jan. 31, 2008 Senate passes open-records bill that would greatly widen access By Amy Worden Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

Makes access to legislative records retroactive. SOURCE: Senate Majority Leader's Office, AP

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/local/15063122.html

And a mere month after DeWeese's NO! vote, with the "blanket exemption" for emails remaining in the House version of open records legislation, (HB 443), November 13, 2007, according to reports, Rep. DeWeese forced seven of his top aides, including longtime chief of staff Michael Manzo, to resign after reviewing documents about to be turned over to Corbett.

"...documents about to be turned over to Corbett..."

Nobody else apparently is concerned DeWeese had access to the "bonus-gate" legislative email communications prior to an announcement of Corbetts' criminal investigation of them.

Nobody else apparently is concerned DeWeese had access to

"...documents about to be turned over to Corbett..."

And had that access and knowledge at the very least about the same time freshman legislator Timothy Mahoney presses for DeWeese's support of an open records legislative bill that does not apply to "past records."

E-mails show how Dems tied staffers' bonuses to campaign work
Sunday, December 16, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

excerpt

DeWeese investigation
Most of the e-mails and spreadsheets were first uncovered by House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, of Waynesburg, who had delegated much of the day-to-day operation of the caucus to Mr. Veon. Mr. DeWeese, after accumulating information from state computers, provided thousands of e-mail exchanges, which are now at the core of the state attorney general's case.

None of the materials obtained by the Post-Gazette suggests that Mr. DeWeese was aware of the scheme. Mr. Veon did not respond to a message seeking comment.

After initially being told by staff that the bonuses were routine seniority and holiday awards, Mr. DeWeese said he discovered that the bonuses amounted to $1.9 million. He then ordered an internal inquiry, calling in William Chadwick, a former prosecutor, in March, prior to the announcement of a criminal probe by the attorney general.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07350/842079-85.stm

Not only is there little interest in determining exactly when Rep. DeWeese had access to the "bonus-gate" emails, there don't seem to be any questions about whether the Mahoney open records bill which denied access to past records would have prevented the "bonus-gate" emails from ever seeing the public light of day.

It appears a DeWeese internal investigation of legislative staffer e-mails began around March 2007. (See Post-Gazette )

Just around the same month Rep. Tim Mahoney's open records bill was introduced. (March 13, 2007) The bill that didn't apply the legislation to "past records."

Though Corbett's investigation may have begun earlier, possibly as early as Jan./Feb. 2007, from the following we know that a Grand Jury investigation! yes, investigation, began at least as early as September, 2007.

BonusGate Grand Jury September 12 2007
Filed under Pa Dems, Pa House by AlexC

Democrat House Staffers have spent the past few days meeting with a grand jury in Harrisburg explaining what’s been going on.

http://pawatercooler.com/?p=2460

Recall, then, the Mahoney legislation for open records did not apply to past records from its inception and introduction March 2007, and the "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications in House Bill 443 remained after the Josephs' amendment's defeat, with a vote of NO! from DeWeese. That action occurred around October, 2007.

E-mails show how Dems tied staffers' bonuses to campaign work
Sunday, December 16, 2007
By Dennis B. Roddy and Tracie Mauriello, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

excerpt

DeWeese investigation
Most of the e-mails and spreadsheets were first uncovered by House Majority Leader H. William DeWeese, of Waynesburg, who had delegated much of the day-to-day operation of the caucus to Mr. Veon. Mr. DeWeese, after accumulating information from state computers, provided thousands of e-mail exchanges, which are now at the core of the state attorney general's case.

None of the materials obtained by the Post-Gazette suggests that Mr. DeWeese was aware of the scheme. Mr. Veon did not respond to a message seeking comment.

After initially being told by staff that the bonuses were routine seniority and holiday awards, Mr. DeWeese said he discovered that the bonuses amounted to $1.9 million. He then ordered an internal inquiry, calling in William Chadwick, a former prosecutor, in March, prior to the announcement of a criminal probe by the attorney general.

Mr. Chadwick's in-house probe resulted in the accumulation of tens of thousands of e-mails that had been automatically archived but which most employees thought had been deleted long ago.

In all, 31,000 archived e-mails thought to have been deleted were later recovered...

excerpt

...The deletion of the 2006 e-mails and attempted destruction of documents in the Democratic Office of Legislative Research are among matters under investigation by the attorney general.

While the e-mails focus entirely on what appears to be a Democratic caucus practice of using state funds to pay volunteers for political work, Mr. Corbett's office is also investigating complaints of similar activities in the Republican caucus.

On Nov. 13 Mr. DeWeese forced out seven top House Democratic aides, including his chief of staff, Michael Manzo. He acted after receiving information from Mr. Chadwick, the Washington attorney and security consultant he had hired months earlier...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07350/842079-85.stm

Nobody else seems to be concerned about the possibility those emails and other documents similar to them would not have been subject to open records under HB 443's "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications, either?

Nobody else seems concerned as anyone re-reading from the Greene County Messenger's archived slew of articles can determine - nobody has asked Rep. DeWeese even one question about his NO! vote on Babette Josephs' crucial amendment. A NO! vote which is one of the most revealing in DeWeese's 30-year political career?

Oh, and we can continue to re-read an article we will not have access to locally from Herald-Standard Uniontown's archives:

Activists issue 'citizens' indictment
Photo and story by Steve Barrett
01/07/2008

Activists representing a grassroots reformist group visited state Rep. Bill DeWeese's Waynesburg district office Wednesday morning to "indict" the House Majority Leader for his alleged involvement in a controversial bonus scandal.

Gene Stilp of Harrisburg and Dennis Baylor of Hamburg, representing the Taxpayers and Ratepayers United PAC, arrived in front of DeWeese's office in Stilp's "Pink Pig Bus" to issue a symbolic "Citizens' Indictment" to DeWeese.

The activists said they are issuing the documents to DeWeese and other legislative members connected to a controversial staff bonus scandal - referred to as "Bonusgate" - and other legislative members currently embroiled in investigations across the state.

"We are issuing these citizens' indictments now because we are approaching the first year anniversary of the official filing date of the complaint that launched the 'Bonusgate' scandal investigation and the attorney general has not issued any indictments directly related to Bonusgate," Stilp said.

Last year, State Attorney General Tom Corbett announced that his office would be conducting an expanding grand jury probe into allegations of illegal legislative bonuses to General Assembly employees.

Corbett is investigating whether Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate handed out $3.6 million to staffers during 2005 and 2006 as a reward for work on campaigns and whether state resources were used for political purposes. Both are illegal.

No one has been charged in the bonus probe, but at least a dozen Democratic staffers have been subpoenaed to appear before a grand jury handling the case in Harrisburg.

House Republicans also received subpoenas for personnel documents...

On Nov. 13, DeWeese forced seven of his top aides, including longtime chief of staff Michael Manzo, to resign after reviewing documents about to be turned over to Corbett.

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/tab4.cfm?newsid=19175636&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=624169&rfi=6

Citizens' Indictment, indeed.

Still no question in investigative quarters about DeWeese's "NO!" vote, the most revealing of NO! votes in his 30-year political career.

Put your thinking caps on.

Open records legislation introduced by Ttimothy Mahoney in March 2007 does not apply to "past records."

Around March 2007, DeWeese

After initially being told by staff that the bonuses were routine seniority and holiday awards, Mr. DeWeese said he discovered that the bonuses amounted to $1.9 million. He then ordered an internal inquiry, calling in William Chadwick, a former prosecutor, in March, prior to the announcement of a criminal probe by the attorney general...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07350/842079-85.stm

H. William DeWeese co-sponsors the Mahoney open records bill 443 in April 2007.

A grand jury investigation begins around September 2007 whose subject may include legislative e-mail communications.

At an October 2007 press conference, addressing features of his bill which do not open up "past records," Rep. Timothy Mahoney is quoted as saying: "we don't need any more investigations."

And, in October 2007 by some internal methodology in the state House, "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications is inserted into HB 443.

Around this time, Tim Potts calls HB 443 the Corruption Protection Act.

That blanket exemption" for e-mail communications receives the dumb award from the PA Newspaper Association too who pulls its support from HB 443.

The "blanket exemption" for e-mail communications remains in the House bill after defeat of Rep. Babette Josephs' amendment which includes the NO! vote of:

_____

Enjoy the historical video maintained at the Greene County Messenger site, and all the articles wherein not one question is asked, well, by now, you know about which DeWeese NO! vote, right?

(Net the Truth Online) (April 9, 2008) (This posting is made almost exactly 6-months after the Rep. Babette Josephs' amendment was defeated with help from the NO! vote of Rep. H. William DeWeese.)

(This site was updated April 10, 2008 to include more NO! vote links, just so any PA news editors and others know exactly which DeWeese NO! vote we're highlighting. And figure out why we're highlighting it.)

Related

Posted on Wed, Feb. 13, 2008
Rendell to get bill on open records
The measure widens access to government documents. It's the first of reforms long promised by the legislature.
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

...The law is retroactive and covers records already collected by government agencies...

...One criticism is that the legislature would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Open Records. Instead, the House and Senate would be allowed to decide whether they are in compliance with the law.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause PA, also pointed out that the Office of Open Records would not be truly independent since it would be attached to a state department under Rendell's jurisdiction. Kauffman believes the office must be part of an independent agency, such as the state Ethics Commission.

Kauffman also said the bill could open the door to allowing municipalities to slap people with nuisance fees - such as a charge for a staff member's time - when they try to seek public records.

And the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association has raised concerns about an exemption in the bill that would cover records relating to minors. The association believes the exemption is so broad that it could prevent even the release of names of students on the honor roll...

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/chester/20080213_Rendell_to_get_bill_on_open_records.html

It's not all roses

Rendell to get bill on open records

The measure widens access to government documents.
It's the first of reforms long promised by the legislature
Feb. 13, 2008
By Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Harrisburg bureau
...Open-records advocates, however, believe the bill still has flaws, thought they call it a major improvement over the current act.

One criticism is that the legislature would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Open Records. Instead, the House and Senate would be allowed to decide whether they are in compliance with the law.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause PA, also pointed out that the Office of Open Records would not be truly independent since it would be attached to a state department under Rendell's jurisdiction. Kauffman believes the office must be part of an independent agency, such as the state Ethics Commission...

http://www.openrecordspa.org/news021308b.html

Implications of Senate Bill 1 Open Records Feb. 29, 2008 and prior articles

http://www.blognetnews.com/pennsylvania/feed.php?channel=75&y=2008&m=02

Chronological articles

http://wikifoia.pbwiki.com/Pennsylvania

Q & A On PA Open Records Feb 22nd, 2008

http://passopenrecords.org/2008/02/22/q-a-on-open-records/

Published: March 23, 2008 11:52 pm

Creation of open-records office among big changes

BY JULIE BENAMATI
The Tribune-Democrat

Just over a month ago, Gov. Ed Rendell signed an improved Right to Know Law – also known as the Open Records Act – which guarantees a citizen’s right to access and obtain copies of public records held by government agencies.

Although some provisions take effect immediately, and others take effect on July 1, the bulk of the new law takes effect on January 1, 2009.

The changes are significant, according to Melissa Melewsky, legal counsel at Pennsylvania Newspaper Association in Harrisburg. She said the state’s law, originally enacted in 1957, was “one of the worst in the country,” and in great need of change.

“It’s not a perfect law, but it’s a vast and much-needed and welcomed improvement,” Melewsky said. “We had one of the worst in the country, and I don’t think we’re in that situation any more.”

Some of the biggest, notable changes:

http://www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_083235248.html

Posted on Tue, Feb. 12, 2008
Accord seen near on Pa. open-records bill
By Angela Couloumbis

Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau
The bill does restrict access to some information. Exemptions would include some 911 emergency recordings, medical records, Social Security numbers, and constituent letters to lawmakers.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania, said the bill still had serious flaws.

Among them, he said, is that the legislature would not fall under the jurisdiction of the Office of Open Records. Instead, the House and Senate would get to decide for themselves whether they were in compliance with the law.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20080212_Accord_seen_near_on_Pa__open-records_bill.html

Sunday, Feb. 17, 2008
Pennsylvania looks brighter under new open-records law
By Bob Heisse

http://www.centredaily.com/331/story/407979.html

Pennsylvania Senate Republicans Open Records Law

Sen. Pileggi's Open Records Bill Sent to Governor

Senator Pileggi's Open Records Bill Approved by Senate; Returns to House for Concurrence

Senator Pileggi Comments on Status of Senate Bill 1

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

http://www.pasenategop.com/reform/reform.htm

Gov. Rendell signed Feb. 14, 2008 & Varied reports

http://www.openrecordspa.org/news.html

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...

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

Pa. House passes open records legislation
Lawmakers say bill strikes balance of rights and privacy
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08033/854243-85.stm

Open records bill running into resistance in Pa. House
Saturday, February 02, 2008
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08033/854243-85.stm

Philadelphia Inquirer
Tue, Dec. 18, 2007
DeWeese: 7 aides ousted over e-mail

Messages indicated that taxpayer money was used as a reward for political work.
By Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20071218_DeWeese__7_aides_ousted_over_e-mail.html

Greene County Messenger Archives State News/Politics

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/tab4.asp?brd=2280&nav_sec=85260

Herald-Standard editors interview DeWeese regarding "Bonusgate"
01/14/2008 Updated 01/24/2008 02:53:33 PM EST

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/tab4.cfm?newsid=19196939&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=624169&rfi=6

January 11, 2008

General Assembly Set to Reconvene January 14; PSATS Opposes House-Passed Open Records Bill
Still Time For Changes — Contact Your Senator
The Pennsylvania General Assembly is set to re-convene on January 14 and Open Records is a priority issue for further deliberation in the Senate.

http://www.psats.org/news_open_records.html

Net the Truth Online

Sunday, February 03, 2008
PA Open Records: Publisher: DeWeese Press On Same Page Access

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/02/pa-open-records-publisher-deweese-press.html

Wednesday, January 30, 2008
PA Open Records Reform: Exemption Central

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-open-records-reform-exemption.html

Tuesday, January 15, 2008
PA: DeWeese Remains Chief Democrat
PA state House Emails and Bonusgate:

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pa-deweese-remains-chief-democrat.html

Monday, January 07, 2008
Pennsylvania Watch Leaders Dance

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pennsylvania-watch-leaders-dance.html

Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Pennsylvania Open Records Scam of New Year?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2008/01/pennsylvania-open-records-scam-of-new.html

Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Net the Truth Online blog Excellent Reporting PA Open Records Issue

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/net-truth-online-blog-excellent.html

Wednesday, October 17, 2007
PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-rep-tim-mahoney-unavailable-to.html

Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Much More

Tuesday, April 03, 2007
PA Capitol: DeWeese Co-Sponsor Freshman Open Records Bill

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/pa-capitol-deweese-co-sponsor-freshman.html

Pass Given to Mahoney on Bad Bill?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pass-given-to-mahoney-on-bad-bill.html

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

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

Newspaper suppresses House Bill Corruption Protection Act

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/newspaper-suppresses-house-bill.html

Mahoney Open Records Bill Called Corruption Protection Act

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/mahoney-open-records-bill-called.html

PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-rep-tim-mahoney-unavailable-to.html

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Open Records for PA Exempted General Assembly

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/open-records-for-pa-exempted-general.html

Search our site for results

(This post has been updated with additional material April 10, 2008)

(This post has been updated with new links June 30, 2008)

Net the Truth Online blog Excellent Reporting PA Open Records Issue

Daily Courier letter-to-the-editor by former PA State legislator, Larry Roberts, commends Net the Truth Online for Excellent Reporting results on the PA Open Records issue. The commentary is much appreciated. Our blog posts don't cater to anyone politically as a review will show. The blog attempts to hold everyone accountable for what they do or don't do.

For instance, the version of open records legislation proposed in the House of Representatives by freshman legislator Tim Mahoney simply put was bad from the start.

Before its consideration in the PA State Government Committee (Wednesday, October 17, 2007), the bill itself contained almost two-dozen exemptions. At its heart, the Mahoney bill includes a feature which makes it insufficient at this time to obtain full open records reform. The bill would only apply to future records produced after the legislation takes effect and already existing open records. Material which has not been open will remain closed.

The Mahoney bill, House Bill 443, as we've stated before, opens the door a bit, only to close it smack in the face of the public.

We've questioned why.

What is there to fear by opening all records to public scrutiny barring any which might pertain to the nation or state's national or state security?

After the Mahoney bill's consideration in the PA State Government Committee, media darling and reformer Tim Potts called the legislation the Corruption Protection Act.

Only the AP reports picked up by a few Philadelphia-based newspapers noted the scathing charge.

As well, we have been concerned with the Newspaper Association's former blanket support for the Mahoney bill when the association was surely well aware of its contents.

It seemed they were more than willing to be complicit in rushing anything through the state General Assembly rather than have a more deliberative process which got it all right from the beginning.

From June until recently, the passopenrecords site (blog) (created by the PA Newspaper Association) has contained little more than glowing commentary for the House bill sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney and supported by Rep. H. William DeWeese, House Majority leader.

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/06/15/legislators-are-speaking-up-for-open-records/

Only after the PA State Government Committee made a bad bill worse did the PA Newspaper Association pull its own support from the Mahoney bill and throw its support to the Senate bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi...

Only after that action did the passopenrecords.org blog change course.

We've questioned why the Press which was present at a Capitol Rotunda press conference (Monday, October 15, 2007) sponsored by the organization passopenrecords was apparently missing-in-action when Mahoney and others were spinning the House legislation.

They failed to ask any further questions of state Representative Tim Mahoney at the conference when they had the chance, and later, Rep. Mahoney was unavailable to a reporter seeking further clarification of his press conference comments.

See our blog post concerning the passopenrecords press conference viewed first-hand on the PCN channel.

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Note the passopenrecords.org blog post reporting on the same conference entitled Yesterday for the date of October 16, 2007. What's missing?

http://passopenrecords.org/page/2/

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/16/yesterday/

What's missing is a flogging Rep. Mahoney and other speakers who still supported Mahoney's bill despite his own commentary it would not apply to the past records which were not open. Mahoney at the time stated: we don't need more investigations.

Yet the passopenrecords.org site doesn't flog Mahoney?

Instead, here is what they stated in Yesterday

You can read the press release from yesterday’s event here.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Scranton Times-Tribune, the Carlisle Sentinel , the Bucks County Courier Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered the event. Whew! That’s just the news coverage - on the editorial page, the Allentown Morning Call wrote about open records reform along with the Uniontown Herald Standard and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And we also announced the winners of PNA’s Open Records Challenge: Alan Trexler a student at Lock Haven University, and Bob Spurdle, a resident of Wayne. Congratulations to both.

Remember, if you want to see open records reform, we need your help - contact your legislator today and urge them to vote for open records reform.

Beverly Schenck summed up what a lot of us are feeling when she told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “I don’t want a bill that’s simply there to make it look like they’re doing something. I want some actual action. The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have.”

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/16/yesterday/

Why urge people to contact their legislators, that day, to vote for the House bill when there were bubbling doubts about it?

Had the org's bloggers even read the legislation prior to posting on the day of the press conference?

A Fresh Breeze is Blowing
Oct 15th, 2007 by JamieB

On the morning of our press conference at the Capitol, there is a real hum of excitement about the possibility of meaningful open records legislation soon. . . .

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/15/225/

PNA/PassOpenRecords.org Press Conference Monday
Oct 11th, 2007 by dani_k

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/11/pnapassopenrecordsorg-press-conference-monday/

This all may sound a bit harsh, but seriously, the org has access many other bloggers around the state simply don't have. They need to be even more forceful in their skepticism, not less.

Currently, the passopenrecords.org site is analyzing the Senate bills pertaining to open records.

http://passopenrecords.org/

That's a commendable service to the public. Hopefully, news reporters who have immediate access to the sponsors of these bills will ask the necessary follow-up questions so the public can have all of information needed to make informed decisions.

Hopefully, passopenrecords.org won't rush to urge support - when bills are wrong for PA from the beginning.

also see Net the Truth Online sidebar or conduct blog search

Pass Given to Mahoney on Bad Bill?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pass-given-to-mahoney-on-bad-bill.html

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

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

Newspaper suppresses House Bill Corruption Protection Act

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/newspaper-suppresses-house-bill.html

Mahoney Open Records Bill Called Corruption Protection Act

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/mahoney-open-records-bill-called.html

PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-rep-tim-mahoney-unavailable-to.html

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Open Records for PA Exempted General Assembly

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/06/open-records-for-pa-exempted-general.html

Some criminal court records already "closed" and won't be opened if Mahoney bill stands as is...

Mixed bag
Thursday, March 02, 2006
Posted 9:01 PM by Dave Ralis


http://www.daveralis.com/dailyrant/2006_02_26_archive.shtml

(Net the Truth Online)

Open-records 'joke'
Daily Courier
Saturday, October 27, 2007

As someone has said, the open-records legislation that came out of the House committee would best be called the Corruption Protection Act. The bill is nothing but a joke.

However, everything the committee failed to do for open records can easily be rectified by the amendment process from the House floor.

Let's all watch to see who does what.

In the meantime, I encourage all your readers who might be interested in open records to check out http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com. When you find the Web site, go to research and type in open records. There are numerous comments there and excellent reporting results on the open-records issue.
Larry Roberts

Uniontown

The writer is a retired state legislator from Uniontown.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/dailycourier/letters/s_534385.html

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

Astounding. Finally the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association steps forward and pulls its support for Pennsylvania House Bill 443, originally submitted by state Representative Timothy Mahoney and amended by the State Government Committee last week.

But the bill was flawed from the getgo, before amendments were made to it in the PA State Government Committee. And the local news media - including the Tribune-Review and Herald-Standard - failed to give the public (constitutents of Rep. Mahoney) a thorough review of the bill in the interests of "public education."

After the committee action amended Mahoney's bill further away from true open records, well-known "reform" activist and media darling, Tim Potts, afterwards tagged the legislation the Corruption Protection Act.

An AP report publicized the comment (picked up by newspapers around the state), but it went unreported in the local area newspapers.

One of the features of the original bill submitted last March by state Rep. Timothy Mahoney (D-51st) has yet to be altered or amended. It stands as is. The original legislation would apply the open records directive to records currently open, not past records, and future records starting at the date the legislation takes effect.

Criticism has focused from these quarters on that aspect of the bill. What is there in the past that needs to be hidden from public view?

The PA Newspaper Association, according to reports, has withdrawn its support from the Mahoney bill and instead appears to be throwing its support to the Senate bill sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi.

According to the Herald-Standard, here's what Rep. Mahoney has said about his own bill after the Association nixed its support.

The association withdrew its support for Mahoney's bill last week partly because it would allow governments to deny requests that officials deem burdensome.

Mahoney said on Tuesday that he was hopeful that his legislation would be amended to remove that language and make other improvements.

"There are going to be a lot of major changes to the bill that came out of committee, and that's what I was hoping for," Mahoney said. "I just wanted the bill to move out of committee so it can get in front of the whole House where it deserves to be."

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18948610&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Rep. Mahoney is hopeful his legislation will be amended to remove language and make other improvements? Why not remove the language from your own bill and make those improvements on your own? Why wait for all the other legislators to rip apart your own bill?

Rep. Mahoney says he "was hoping for" the "major changes" ??? When? Once it gets to the floor of the whole House of Representatives?

Why not make the major changes yourself, since you know major changes are needed?

Rep. Mahoney just wanted his bill to move out of committee so it can get in front of the whole House...

Seriously, why didn't Rep. Mahoney withdraw all of the portions of his own bill he knew were in need of "major changes" and which were under attack by the PA Newspaper Association, and others, once they discovered them?

How simple of an action for Rep. Mahoney to have delayed consideration of his bill "to do it right" the first time out and delete those sections of his own bill before he allowed the State Government Committee to amend.

Why rush a bill through - there's only one reason - your own politicial interests over and above the interests of the public you are supposed to serve.

Rep. Mahoney should hear from his constitutents.

It's unlikely he will when our area newspapers have failed in their public service to challenge the offensive contents of the Mahoney legislation from its inception.

The Newspaper Association isn't blameless either. They hurriedly supported anything and everything initially, without exacting specifics prior to the submission of the Mahoney bill to the State Government Committee. They were complicit in its rushed action.

Worse, the passopenrecords.org site, linked just about everywhere - that site was created by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

Doesn't that call into question the passopenrecords.org so-called press conference last Monday, when The Press had an opportunity during the conference to further question Rep. Tim Mahoney publicly about the exemptions in his submitted bill before it made its way to the State Government Committee.

It does. The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association wanted as quick action as did the legislators sponsoring the legislation.

That isn't serving the public.

We questioned the news media's lack of pressing for answers then.

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Now they've pulled their support for Mahoney's bill, and are going where?

Elsewhere. But will that support be as hurried and rushed, with as disastrous consequences for the public?

We'll have to see. Advice: Do it right, or DON'T DO IT AT ALL.

Hey we beat em on the PA Newspaper Assoc pulling its support!

Public Records Bill Comes Under Fire; Critics Say The House Proposal, Aimed At Strengthening State Law, Is Weakened By Too Many Exemptions. (10-29-07)

http://www.accountability-central.com/single-view-default/single-view-lexis-nexis/article/public-records-bill-comes-under-fire-critics-say-the-house-proposal-aimed-at-strengthening-state-l/

Putting a fresh angle on the debate for open records, PNA has created a blog, passopenrecords.org, that will allow citizens from across the state to get involved in the campaign.


The effort is focused on state legislation to expand Pennsylvania’s open records law, considered one of the most restrictive in the nation.

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18274181&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18038&rfi=6

Newspaper association solicits public support for open records reform
04/28/2007

http://www.pottstownmercury.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18274181&BRD=1674&PAG=461&dept_id=18038&rfi=6

Pennsylvania Newspaper Association

http://www.pa-newspaper.org/Core/Search.aspx?query=open%20records

Freedom of Information Blog

http://thefoiablog.typepad.com/the_foia_blog/2007/10/around-the-stat.html

Tim Potts September early warning comments about Tim Mahoney original bill (unreported locally)

State Wants Open Records
By: Jim McCaffrey, The Bulletin
09/10/2007

Tim Potts, the executive director of Democracy Rising Pennsylvania, doesn't like any of the proposed bills. He believes they are too restrictive.
"We shouldn't be looking at any of the bills in the legislature now," he declared. "We should be looking at the Open Records law they have in Nebraska. We should be looking at how open, how convenient and how cheap it is to get the information you are looking for there.
"The Mahoney bill has at least two dozen pieces of information it wants to keep secret. The Nebraska law has only about a dozen."

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=18800082&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6

Net the Truth Online Warnings

See search listing

October 16, 2007 Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=timothy+mahoney

June 30, 2007

Open Records for PA Exempted General Assembly?

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/search?q=timothy+mahoney

Some criminal court records already "closed" and won't be opened if Mahoney bill stands as is...

Thursday, March 02, 2006
Posted 9:01 PM by Dave Ralis

Mixed bag

http://www.daveralis.com/dailyrant/2006_02_26_archive.shtml

Net the Truth Online
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
PA Capitol: DeWeese Co-Sponsor Freshman Open Records Bill
Looks like everybody is just getting along so well in Harrisburg...

Note: there's more than one bill

Note: there's still not going to be access to fill-in-the-blankety-blank

Note: history has a way of repeating itself

Note: whatever bill finally passes everybody will claim as they did in 2002

Note: Office so and such - wonder how many party patronage positions will open up

Note: everybody clap if you believe they'll let us see everything so easily

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/04/pa-capitol-deweese-co-sponsor-freshman.html

Newspaper suppresses House Bill Corruption Protection Act

The following Herald-Standard article at least details that the open records bill originally submitted by PA state Rep. Tim Mahoney and amended in the State Government Committee Wednesday would indeed become the most restrictive law in the nation in opening up electronic mail to public scrutiny.

But why still no mention of reform media darling Tim Potts public criticism of the legislation, tagging it the "Corruption Protection Act?"

Potts tagged the Mahoney Bill the "Corruption Protection Act" for a variety of reasons, not just the State Government Committee's revision to the section in the original bill pertaining to electronic mail.

Why the silence from Herald-Standard editorial page editor, Paul Sunyak? Where is the criticism of the bill from the standpoint of applying the legislation only to those records already open, and those after the bill is in effect? Why no outcry that past public records will BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC?

Update: stand corrected. While not as forceful as we'd have liked, Sunyak took Mahoney to task at the end of an editorial

Action needed on open records
Paul Sunyak, Herald-Standard editorial page editor
10/16/2007
...It is now time to fish and cut bait. It is not time for more stalling and delays, such as the additional public hearings that state Rep. Paul Clymer, a Bucks County Republican, would like to hold. The House Speaker's Reform Commission has thrashed this out; the Senate has had ample time to study the issue. Solid frameworks exist. There is nothing tricky about what needs done.

The House should hold a meeting this week (as of last week, none has been scheduled) to report the bill out of committee, and the full House should get the ball rolling by voting on its version the week of Oct. 22.

As the fine-tuning unwinds, confidentiality of e-mails and whether to include records from the past are still being thrashed out. While we have lauded Mahoney's strong efforts in the House, which have verified our endorsement of him in 2006, we urge him to reconsider his position that any broader definition of public records should only apply to documents generated after the new law goes into effect.

"We don't need to open up other scandals. We have enough investigations going on in this damn state. We don't have to have more," says Mahoney.

If government officials have engaged in questionable spending or other practices, yes, we do, Mr. Mahoney. This is not a case of giving anyone a free pass, even in the name of bill-passing expediency.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18920298&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468517&rfi=6

Odd isn't it, too. The PA Newspaper Publisher Association's own legal analyst/lawyer has been snubbed by the absence of reporting of her full comments...

Note Mahoney's bill without the amendments applied only to newly created records. In fact during the Monday press conference hosted by openrecords.org (created by the PA Newspaper Association) Tim Mahoney made a brief statement to that effect.

Here are Henning's objections, again:

The bill in its current form allows agencies to deny requests they consider “burdensome,” which Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Teri Henning said is a vague and subjective term.

Henning said there are legal problems with a provision that would generally apply the bill only to newly created records. If an existing record is not open to the public now, it probably will not be open in the future.

“If the point is to improve access, then access should be improved,” she said...

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/statehouse/article249114.ece

See our posts

Mahoney Open Records Bill Called Corruption Protection Act

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/mahoney-open-records-bill-called.html

PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/pa-rep-tim-mahoney-unavailable-to.html

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/citizen-discontent-open-records.html

Proposed bill restricts public access to lawmakers' e-mails
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/20/2007
Updated 10/20/2007 12:16:01 AM EDT

HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania would have one of the nation's most restrictive laws on access to public officials' e-mail messages under an open records bill that the state House of Representatives plans to consider this week.

The legislation would ban public access to all e-mail messages sent or received from all public officials whether it's the governor or a township supervisor.

Under current state law, the public can view Pennsylvania state and municipal officials' e-mail if the content meets the state's narrow definition of a public record. And the Legislature is not subject to the state's open records law, making all of its e-mail off-limits.

Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Arlington, Va., said most states - either through court orders or the lack of explicit bans on releasing e-mail messages - treat e-mail the same as any other record kept by a public officials.

Giving the public access to e-mail is important because officials sometimes vent controversial issues online before debating them in public, she said.

"We tell reporters that e-mail doesn't stand for electronic mail, it stands for evidence mail," said Dalglish, whose organization provides legal assistance to media members involved in First Amendment disputes. "You put something down in writing, and it's got some traction to it."

But Rep. Greg Vitali said allowing the public to view their e-mail would violate constituents' privacy rights.

Vitali, a Delaware County Democrat, wrote the provision that would exclude e-mail messages from the open records law the House is considering.

He said constituents who send e-mail messages to lawmakers seeking help with an issue do not expect that their requests will ever become public...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18938426&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Mahoney Open Records Bill Called Corruption ProtectionAct

Pennsylvania state Representative Tim Mahoney's bill (which was amended in the state Government Committee Wednesday, October 17, 2007), was called the Corruption Protection Act by "good government advocate and critic of the legislation," Tim Potts, founder of Democracy Rising PA...

Pa. open records bill, on fast track, becomes target for critics
10/18/2007, 6:18 p.m. EDT
By MARK SCOLFORO
The Associated Press

http://www.pennlive.com/newsflash/pa/index.ssf?/base/news-55/1192746369179040.xml&storylist=penn

republished

http://www.openrecordspa.org/news34.html

Revision to State open-records law criticized
The Associated Press, 10/19/07 11:31 AM EDT
UPDATED: 10/19/07 11:49 AM EDT

HARRISBURG * A proposed revision to Pennsylvania’s open-records law drew some harsh criticism from public access advocates Thursday, one day after it was hurriedly pushed out of a legislative committee.

State lawmakers and Gov. Ed Rendell have touted a revision of the Right-to-Know Law as the centerpiece of government reform efforts. The bill emerged from the State Government Committee late Wednesday and could be debated on the House floor as soon as next week.

But the immediate reaction was generally negative.

The bill in its current form allows agencies to deny requests they consider “burdensome,” which Pennsylvania Newspaper Association lawyer Teri Henning said is a vague and subjective term.

Henning said there are legal problems with a provision that would generally apply the bill only to newly created records. If an existing record is not open to the public now, it probably will not be open in the future.

“If the point is to improve access, then access should be improved,” she said.“This bill is clearly not anywhere close to being ready for prime time,” said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause of Pennsylvania.

Tim Potts, co-founder of the government reform group Democracy Rising PA, called the amended bill “the Corruption Protection Act.”

“Their standard is ‘what is the least we can get away with’ rather than ‘what’s the best we can do,’” Potts said. “We don’t elect these people to give us lousy laws, we elect them to give us good laws, and this is lousy.”

Earlier this week, State Government Chairwoman Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, introduced a 21-page amendment based on months of research and negotiation. It narrowly made it out of her committee amid complaints that members and the public needed more time to digest it.

“So much for the reform process,” said Doug Hill, executive director of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, which opposes the bill in its current form. “We have actually said, privately to a number of legislators, now that we have a bill to look at, please give us time.”

The bill would make all government records beyond a long list of exceptions available to the public and force government agencies to justify denials. But its many other provisions worry some of the people who have followed the issue most closely.

“This bill creates exemptions that are so large that there’s not much left of presumption-of-access at the end of the day,” said Jamie Blaine, a former newspaper publisher who edits the www.passopenrecords.org blog. “I guess there’s always the Senate.”

The bill would establish the Pennsylvania Public Records Office within the State Ethics Commission, with an executive director appointed by the governor. The office would handle records disputes, conduct training and set fees, among other things; disputes involving the Legislature, Attorney General’s Office, Auditor General’s Office or Treasurer’s Office would go straight to Commonwealth Court.

Some raised questions about whether a gubernatorial appointee would be willing to rule fairly against executive branch agencies.

“They should be letting the ethics commission appoint the director,” Kauffman said. “The whole idea of this is to divorce the decision making from those who might politically benefit from either withholding or exposing information.”

The draft aims to accommodate people whose prior dealings with the government were based on an expectation of privacy, said Tom Andrews, spokesman for House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene.

“If we reduce the sales tax, we don’t go back and give people a refund,” Andrews said.

Larry Frankel with the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union said the draft bill came reasonably near the mark in balancing privacy with the public’s need to know. Under House rules, a final vote probably will not occur before Oct. 29.

“I think it represents a good effort — not that it can’t continue to be worked on and improved,” he said.

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/statehouse/article249114.ece

More

Open-records bill becomes target for critics
Associated Press
10/19/2007
HARRISBURG - A proposed revision to Pennsylvania's open-records law drew some harsh criticism from public access advocates Thursday, one day after it was hurriedly pushed out of a legislative committee.

State lawmakers and Gov. Ed Rendell have touted a revision of the Right-to-Know Law as the centerpiece of government reform efforts. The bill emerged from the State Government Committee late Wednesday and could be debated on the House floor as soon as next week.

But immediate reaction has been generally negative...

http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/StoryAP/10_19_Open_Records

More

Pa. open records revision doesn't go far enough, some say

http://www.post-gazette.net/pg/07292/826775-100.stm

More

Pa. open records bill, on fast track, becomes target for critics

http://www.whptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=259916e6-c0e3-48b7-bfa0-9f8c6eff8884&rss=50

Less - missing missing missing - the more scathing remarks from good-government advocates and critics of the Mahoney Bill, and Teri Henning's full remarks.

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

HARRISBURG - In a sign of just how jealously government in Pennsylvania guards the information it generates, a state House panel wrangled for more than three hours Wednesday night over a bill aimed at giving the public more access to budgets, meeting minutes, expense accounts and other government documents.


The House State Government Committee voted largely along party lines in favor of the first major overhaul in decades of the state's open records law. The full House of Representatives could consider the measure as early as next week.

Republican committee members objected to a flurry of last-minute amendments and unsuccessfully attempted to force a public hearing on a bill that has been completely re-written since it was first introduced in March.

Barry Kauffman, executive director of Harrisburg-based government watchdog Common Cause Pennsylvania, agreed with GOP lawmakers who argued the public should have the opportunity to review the bill before a committee vote.

"This is a highly inappropriate way to move any legislation, let alone an open records bill," Kauffman said. "There's no need to rush this."

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.

However, lawmakers said the bill was a positive step toward ending the secrecy surrounding how Pennsylvania government spends money.

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., the prime sponsor of the legislation, heralded a provision that presumes most documents are public. Currently, the person requesting information must prove what they are seeking is considered a public document.

"We're coming out of the Dark Ages," Mahoney said. "Everyone is not going to get everything they want in this bill. It's a lot better law than we've ever had."

Rep. Deberah Kula, D-North Union Twp., agreed...

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

Also see

Proposal exempts correspondence from public review
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/17/2007
Updated 10/18/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

HARRISBURG - Most state lawmakers' e-mail messages and other correspondence related to public policy decisions would still be off-limits to the public under open records legislation scheduled for a vote today in the House State Government Committee.


Only e-mail messages that contain detailed discussions of spending public money would be available under a proposal to update the state's open records law sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp.


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

Also see

House panel passes open records bill
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 18, 2007

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-10182007-1425593.html

Previous posts

PA Rep. Tim Mahoney Unavailable to Explain Public Records Exemptions

As we noted here yesterday in Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions, a review of Pennsylvania state representative Timothy Mahoney's (House Bill 443) reveals the legislation opens the public records door a bit, then slams the door in the faces of citizens and the press seeking any and all material produced from government officials (public servants.)

The bill contains a long laundry list of exemptions, (over 40 as noted in Kori Walter's article Proposal exempts correspondence from public review ) and as we highlighted, including exclusion of emails not directly containing references to funding, etc...

We called the media on the carpet, specifically for not doing its due diligence when they had Rep. Tim Mahoney in public at a press conference on Monday.

The Press did not press Rep. Mahoney to publicly and totally explain his bill's exemptions after he commented at the Monday press conference "we don't need more investigations."

Now you see what happens, don't you. Rep. Tim Mahoney just isn't available to comment to a reporter seeking further explanation of his bill.

But, Rep. Mahoney should be available to you, the citizens who not only own this country and this state, but who are the bosses of elected public servants.

And to borrow a phrase from Kori Walter, (made the statement during a phone call on a local radio program when I called in and asked his opinion on Mahoney not taking immediate action on Keystone Opportunity Zones when he agreed KOZs are unfair, not uniform according to the PA Constitution, and unconstitution Keystone Opportunity Zones Unfair Agrees State Legislator Tim Mahoney )

THE CITIZENS SET THE AGENDA (Kori Walter, Let's Talk, WMBS 590)

And in this case, the citizens of Pennsylvania want real open public records. The citizens really really do. We do not want the open records door opened a bit, then closed in our faces.

Contact Rep. Mahoney. If Rep. Mahoney hears directly from the disenchanted in his own 51st legislative district - he will have no excuse not to listen to you over whoever is advising him of what "should be" the contents of his bill.

demand your agenda be implemented, not the legislator's half-effort.

Know the facts.

Demand all or nothing. Full open records or nothing at this time.

Demand Rep. Mahoney redo House Bill 443.

State Representative Timothy Mahoney website and contact info

Hon. Tim Mahoney
66A Lebanon Avenue
Uniontown, PA 15401
(724) 438-6100
Fax: (724) 438-6104

Hon. Tim Mahoney
1402 Memorial Blvd.
Connellsville, PA 15425
(724) 626-1164
Fax: (724) 626-1165

Hon. Tim Mahoney
104B East Wing
PO Box 202051
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2051
(717) 772-2174
Fax: (717) 780-4786

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?districtnumber=51

http://www.pahouse.com/Mahoney/

It isn't too late to make your demands known. The bill has to go through the legislative process and can be amended and revised before it is adopted.

Pennsylvania State Government Committee

Members Contact Info

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/representatives_sc.cfm#36

Fayette County 52nd District Representative Deberah Kula, member of committee contact

Hon. Deberah Kula
1251 University Drive
Dunbar, PA 15431
(724) 626-2761
Fax: (724) 626-2707

Hon. Deberah Kula
1 Etze Avenue
Municipal Building
Mt. Pleasant, PA 15666
(724) 547-4057
Fax: (724) 547-0399

Hon. Deberah Kula
104A East Wing
PO Box 202052
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2052
(717) 772-1858
Fax: (717) 780-4784



http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?id=1094

(Net the Truth Online)

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
HARRISBURG - Most state lawmakers' e-mail messages and other correspondence related to public policy decisions would still be off-limits to the public under open records legislation scheduled for a vote today in the House State Government Committee.

Only e-mail messages that contain detailed discussions of spending public money would be available under a proposal to update the state's open records law sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp.

Mahoney's legislation would assume most government documents are public and expand the open records law to include the Legislature, which had been exempt.

But an analysis of the bill provided by the state government committee listed about 40 exemptions.

While Mahoney has spent months touting legislation to expand public access to government documents, at least one Capitol watchdog said proposed revisions to the state's open records law would not go far enough in lifting the veil of secrecy shrouding state and local government...

Another controversial provision deals with opening up past records to the public.

The proposal expected to be sent to the full House of Representatives today would not allow access to any records not covered under the current law...

...Mahoney has said he does not support opening up access to past documents because the state has enough investigations and doesn't need anymore.

However, he did not return phone calls seeking comment on Monday...

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

More

Lawmakers pledge expanded access to records
Tribune Review Richard Robbins
Friday, October 12, 2007


State Senate Democrats vowed Thursday to pass an expanded Right-to-Know Law by the end of the year in an attempt to win back public confidence in state government after a series of abuses involving backroom deal-making and hidden expense accounts.
Sen. Richard Kasunic, a Fayette County Democrat and chairman of his party's policy committee, said the public is demanding "more accountability and transparency" from state and local governments.

"We think the public has the right to access public records," Kasunic said at a policy committee hearing in Uniontown on open records legislation. "We are very serious about this. It is our intent to make sure we have one of the best open records laws in the land."

Without specifically saying so, what some lawmakers have in mind is allowing the public to draw back the curtain on information that for years has been under wraps in Pennsylvania. These range from the bonuses and salaries paid to legislative aides to the expenses run up by members of state and local authorities and the decisions and actions of state-related universities.

Presumably, anything not specifically exempted would be open to public scrutiny under any new legislation.
Kasunic said an open records bill could be on Gov. Ed Rendell's desk sometime in December. Asked about this prediction after the hearing, Sen. John Wozniak, of Johnstown, shrugged his shoulders. "I don't know. I'm not in charge. It would be nice."

Sen. James Ferlo, the author of one of two Senate bills aimed at broadening the public's right to know, said, "It's time for us to clean up state government."

Ferlo, a Pittsburgh Democrat, touted his bill, which he said would reverse years of practice in Pennsylvania and make public access to government records a right, not a privilege dispensed by state government bureaucrats or elected officials.

"As it currently stands, the person seeking access must prove that he or she has a right to that access," Ferlo said in prepared remarks to the policy committee. "In most states, however, the burden is on the agency to show that specific information is not public under the law."

"Providing access to public records is an essential function of government agencies and an integral part of the fundamental duties of public officials and employees," Ferlo said.

Ferlo's bill would create an Office of Access to hear appeals from citizens and others denied access to public records. He said the office should be funded to the tune of "$4 (million) to $5 million."

The Ferlo legislation is one of three open records bills before the General Assembly. The chief sponsor of a second Senate bill is Sen. Dominic Pileggi, a Delaware County Republican. Fayette County Democrat Tim Mahoney has introduced legislation in the House.

Ferlo said the Pileggi bill was "fundamentally flawed" because it does not presume the public's right to know.

The Web site of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association said Pileggi has "pledged to revise" his bill to include language similar to Ferlo's. Pileggi was not immediately available for comment.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_532243.html

Citizen Discontent Open Records Exemptions

(Tuesday October 16, 2007) After the press conference sponsored by passopenrecords.org, held Monday October 15, 2007 at the Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg, PA, our news representatives took a turn asking questions of the legislative speakers supporting new Pennsylvania open records legislation.

One of the bills in the House of Representatives is sponsored by state Rep. Timothy Mahoney (Democrat-Fayette County-51st District) House Bill 443) who is asked about his brief statement during the conference in support of his bill.

Rep. Mahoney is asked point blank by a news reporter to explain his position that there is no need for more investigations.

What Mahoney said in response to the question: there is no need for more investigations... it's time for Pennsylvania to go forward and not backwards... there are plenty of black eyes... we don't need more black eyes... we need to focus on open records... property tax elimination... not referring to anything ongoing, but back in the past five or ten years... we need to go forward...

What was said during the press conference.

Senator Dominic Pileggi. "We have made remarkable progress.. enact a statute that states all government records remain open unless they fall under the category of the (exemptions)...

Sen. Jim Ferlo several controversial issues... original open records law passed in the 1950s is long overdue for change... no window-dressing... pass the strongest open records law in the country...

Rep. Tim Mahoney... this bill is not a reform bill... it is a bill of trust to put trust back into this beautiful building here where people trust (us) to take care of their 27 billion dollars a year, so people know where their money is being spent... we don't need more investigations... records covered ... from the time this bill passes... we need to start there... this is the first step...

Babette Josephs... what this state government has always assumed is that the docs the info generated by state government belongs to state government and that it's up to the people requesting information to prove it has a right to the information... we're going to turn that on its head in our legislation...

(Net the Truth Online Tuesday October 16, 2007)(from viewing Pennsylvania Cable Network broadcast)

Well, the news media failed us again. Really, if you are going to ask a legislator to explain his or her position, and he or she doesn't, you press further to get a decent answer. (press, that's one reason they're called The Press)

That didn't happen with the questioning of Rep. Timothy Mahoney. He wasn't asked why past "investigations" in Pennsylvania history SHOULD BE EXEMPTED from sunshine.

He wasn't pressed to answer why the legislation should only apply to records from the time of enactment of the bill, if that was his meaning.

What reason could there possibly be to suppress anything so long as there would not be a so-called "immediate" national or state security risk to divulge?

Representative Mahoney should have been questioned further by the same group of newspaper reporters and editors who support full open records. (barring security concerns)

The public does not want piece-meal open records in Pennsylvania. It appears that Rep. Mahoney won't refrain from the political rhetoric on the issue. Give them a bite of the bone, but not the whole bone. Who or what is he bent on protecting?

What an early Christmas gift should the Mahoney legislation be adopted filled with its current exemptions.

The news media did not ask Rep. Mahoney specifically about contents of this bill in regard to a string of exemptions contained in his legislation.

Seriously, here they had the passopenrecords.org (created by the PA Newspaper Association), and Rep. Mahoney, and all the time in the world before deadlines, and it was like in the past at these public events, whatever the legislator says, just let it go, maybe the public will forget there are still unanswered questions. (And questions we just didn't ask).

All government records shall be open, sounds great, getting all warm and fuzzy... but read on, unless EXCLUDED...

That's right, unless excluded, and take a look and really see what is excluded...

The Mahoney bill presents over 25 such exemptions.

Take a look at the long-laundry-list of exemptions in Rep. Mahoney's open records bill. Section 302 Access Generally (a) Enumerated Exemptions

Pay particular attention, folks. 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.

Say what? What is sad is Rep. Mahoney will not be held accountable by the media for his lack of an explanation. All the public will hear and read is how great this bill is, how it reverses the longstanding burden of seekers of the information having to prove a right to access.

Worse, if Mahoney's bill doesn't pass, (and it should not unless the exemptions disputed are removed) he'll still be supported and blame will be placed on legislators who "just don't want to see open records with teeth."

The Post-Gazette reports Beverly Schenck's comments:

"I don't want a bill that's simply there to make it look like they're doing something. I want some actual action," she said. "The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have."

Well guess what, that's what the Mahoney bill is - it looks like they are doing something, but if there are exemptions and material prior to the passage of the bill are exempted as well, then really what are they doing? Nothing.

There should be growing citizenry discontent pertaining to the open records "exemptions." That can't happen if there remains a press that's supposed to ask the questions on our behalf, failing.

The Newspaper Publishers Association and others are so bent on getting anything, anything opened they'll accept a watered-down version. The informed public should not.

Write PA state Rep. Timothy Mahoney. Tell him not to open the door just a bit, then close it right smack in our faces. Either do open records right, or don't do it at all at this time.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/member_information/house_bio.cfm?districtnumber=51

Write letters to the editor, or comment here.

(Net the Truth Online posted Tuesday October 16, 2007)

clip

Pennsylvania pushes to open records
By Brad Bumsted
STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
HARRISBURG -- A House committee on Wednesday likely will approve legislation intended to make state and local government records more open to taxpayers, the panel's chairwoman said.

The House State Government Committee will vote on legislation sponsored by Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Uniontown Democrat, to strengthen the state's Right to Know Law enacted in 1957.

"I aim to see the citizens of this state get the records they already own," said Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who chairs the committee.

The Senate State Government Committee soon will vote on a separate bill by Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, according to Colleen Greer, an aide to Chairman Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin County.

...Lawmakers of both parties, including Pileggi and Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, called for action Monday at a Capitol news conference. They said the proposed law should put the burden on government to show why records should not be released. Currently, that burden rests with citizens requesting records.

"Let's pass the strongest and most viable open records law in the country," Ferlo said.

Lawmakers said they are working on the exemptions to records that would be publicly released, such as those containing trade secrets, Social Security numbers, credit reports and details of ongoing police investigations.

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

Any records from the past would be covered by existing law, Mahoney said. "Why do we want to go backward when we should go forward?" he said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_532821.html

House panel to vote on open records bill
By Kori Walter, For the Herald-Standard
10/16/2007
Updated 10/16/2007 11:47:37 AM EDT
HARRISBURG - A state House panel plans to push ahead this week with a vote on an open records bill expanding public access to government records, House Democrat leaders said Monday.


But the public - and most lawmakers - will have to wait until at least today to see if the bill lives up to the months of hype or laden with loopholes.

Copies of the bill and the several amendments were still being printed late Monday.

Rep. Babette Josephs, a Philadelphia Democrat, said during a rally in support of strengthening the state's Open Records Law that the State Government Committee would vote on a measure to make it easier for residents to obtain records ranging from how much townships pay solicitors to how much lawmakers' spend on lunch.

"We will pursue legislation that will say, without a shadow of a doubt, that documents, information and data belong to the people," said Josephs, chairwoman of the committee.

Josephs said lawmakers would craft exemptions to the law that bar the public from obtaining personal information, such as Social Security numbers or trade secrets.

"I do not want to expose any government employees to the risks of identity theft," she said.

Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-South Union Twp., has proposed the most ambitious overhaul of the state's law governing open records in decades.

He did not know exactly how much information would still be off-limits to the public in the bill's final version.

Regardless, Mahoney said his main concern is giving taxpayers access to all documents involved in spending public funds.

"We have to open the records so a common Joe knows where their money is being spent," he said during the rally.

Two separate bills have been introduced in the state Senate to loosen the firm grip state and local governments have on information in Pennsylvania.

Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, a Delaware County Republican, said leadership in both chambers agrees that the burden of proving that a document is not a public record should be shifted to government officials.

Currently, the burden is on citizens requesting records to prove that the document they want is considered a public record...

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18920672&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Details delay open records legislation
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 15, 2007 6:44 AM


HARRISBURG — Loosening the steel grip that state and local governments in Pennsylvania have on documents could take a little longer than some expected.

A state House panel vote may be delayed on a bill that would expand access to government documents ranging from lawmakers' expense accounts to Penn State football coach Joe Paterno's salary.

Good government advocates and lawmakers are still trying to agree on whether government officials' e-mail messages and records from the past should be available for public review.

Some disagreement remains over whether individuals' birth dates, which are currently available in court documents, should be excluded from all public documents and which state agency would oversee requests to review records...

...Rep. Tim Mahoney, a Fayette County Democrat, is the prime sponsor of a House bill that would require any document related to spending taxpayer money public.

Mahoney said he still believes a committee vote will occur this week, but acknowledged staffers are fine-tuning the legislation.

“I'm pretty sure that we are real close (to an agreement),” he said. “Who in their right mind would be against this bill, and think they are going to get elected next year?”

Mahoney said there's pretty much widespread support for putting the burden on government to prove that a document should not be public. Currently, citizens requesting documents must make the case that a document should be released.

But Mahoney said the broader definition of a public record should apply to only those documents generated after the law goes into effect, not past records.

“We don't need to open up other scandals,” Mahoney said. “We have enough investigations going on in this damn state. We don't have to have more.”

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-10152007-1423756.html

Bills aim to open public records
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
By Tracie Mauriello, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau
HARRISBURG -- Beverly Schenck has been waiting 41/2 years for an itemized accounting of attorney fees paid by Center Township.

She's been through Butler County Common Pleas Court and Commonwealth Court, which both ruled the township could withhold the documents under attorney-client privilege. Now she's awaiting a ruling from the state Supreme Court, which heard her case last month.

Invoices for the expenditure of public funds should be public, she said during a press conference yesterday in Harrisburg.

State Rep. Tim Mahoney, D-Uniontown, thinks so, too.

That's why he is the prime sponsor of an open-records bill that is expected to come before the House State Government Committee tomorrow. A floor vote could occur by week's end and a Senate vote could soon follow.

"We are closer than ever to achieving an open-records bill that is both meaningful and imminent," said Jamie Blaine, editor of the blog passopenrecords.org.

The centerpiece of Mr. Mahoney's legislation would change the way government records are viewed in Pennsylvania. Currently, they are presumed to be closed to public inspection unless the requester proves otherwise.

Most other states and the federal Freedom of Information Act begin with the presumption that government records are public unless the agency that possesses them proves that disclosing them would cause harm.

Under Mr. Mahoney's bill, records would be presumed open unless they fall under a limited list of exceptions.

The bill faces wrangling whether those exceptions should include things such as public universities' payroll records, police officers' disciplinary records, recordings of 911 calls and casino-license applications...

...Mrs. Schenck is hoping for fast action so other residents don't have to go through the legal battles she is continuing to fight to get information about how public funds are spent.

"I've spent thousands of dollars to fight for this because it's the right thing to do, and I'm a paralegal. I'm sure the majority of people don't have the knowledge or the resources I have," she said after the press conference.

She hopes the Legislature passes strong, meaningful legislation that makes public records broadly accessible.

"I don't want a bill that's simply there to make it look like they're doing something. I want some actual action," she said. "The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have."


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07289/825744-85.stm

Related

search results

http://www.google.com/search?q=pennsylvania+newspapers+association+open+records+press+conference&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Rep. Tim Mahoney

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=pennsylvania+tim+mahoney+open+records+investigations&btnG=Search

Kori Walter Bucks County Courier Times article

Open records vote expected this week
By KORI WALTER
Bucks County Courier Times
October 16, 2007

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/111-10162007-1424364.html

Pass Open Records

clip

Yesterday
Oct 16th, 2007 by dani_k

You can read the press release from yesterday’s event here.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Harrisburg Patriot-News, the Scranton Times-Tribune, the Carlisle Sentinel , the Bucks County Courier Times and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette covered the event. Whew! That’s just the news coverage - on the editorial page, the Allentown Morning Call wrote about open records reform along with the Uniontown Herald Standard and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

And we also announced the winners of PNA’s Open Records Challenge: Alan Trexler a student at Lock Haven University, and Bob Spurdle, a resident of Wayne. Congratulations to both.

Remember, if you want to see open records reform, we need your help - contact your legislator today and urge them to vote for open records reform.

Beverly Schenck summed up what a lot of us are feeling when she told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, “I don’t want a bill that’s simply there to make it look like they’re doing something. I want some actual action. The more exceptions, the more opportunities there will be for [government officials] to deny access to information people should have.”

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/16/yesterday/

A Fresh Breeze is Blowing
Oct 15th, 2007 by JamieB

On the morning of our press conference at the Capitol, there is a real hum of excitement about the possibility of meaningful open records legislation soon. . . .

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/15/225/

PNA/PassOpenRecords.org Press Conference Monday
Oct 11th, 2007 by dani_k

http://passopenrecords.org/2007/10/11/pnapassopenrecordsorg-press-conference-monday/