Pass Given to Mahoney on Bad Bill?

Why did Mr. Williams state the original legislation as submitted by PA Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-51st) was a "good" bill to begin with? It wasn't. The original bill pertained only to opening many already accessible records, and would have applied to future records, not past records.

Mahoney's bill had itself contained two-dozen exemptions.

The bill was amended further toward the downside by the State Government Committee, making it worse, rather than better.

It's doubtful the full House will amend to the upside as well.

It's puzzling that Williams didn't call a spade a spade. And that calls into question the neutrality of the PA Newspaper Association. Ah, look at the title given the letter: Open records reform thwarted. Key word, reform. Reformers. Rather than call one of the media darlings a non-reformer for presenting a bad bill to begin with, the PA Newpaper Association would rather place the blame on the State Government Committee "process."

Now we know.

Open records reform thwarted
By Tim Williams, Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
10/24/2007
Updated 10/24/2007 09:59:39 AM EDT
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives stands poised to vote on a new open records law for Pennsylvania, House Bill 443. Unfortunately, the bill, as amended, would actually make access more difficult in Pennsylvania and would make Pennsylvania government more closed than ever before.


How could this happen, when legislative leaders and Gov. Rendell have all pledged support for open records reform and for making Pennsylvania government more open and accountable to its citizens? That's what we want to know.

House Bill 443, as originally proposed by Rep. Tim Mahoney (D-Fayette), was a good bill. It created the presumption of access to agency records and contained a list of exemptions for certain documents that required protection, including medical records, documents that would disclose ongoing police investigations, and homeland security-related documents. The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association supported many of its provisions.

Last week, however, the House State Government Committee voted to amend the bill. Not only did the Committee completely replace Rep. Mahoney's bill with language that would close much of Pennsylvania government, it rushed the entire process through in less than a day. The amendment was not publicly available until hours before the committee meeting.

No stakeholder had sufficient time to review or comment on the amendment prior to the meeting. Significant amendments were added during the committee meeting, without any public input, and the committee suspended the rules that would normally apply to timing of amendments. Legislative leaders have been promising meaningful reform, both substantive and procedural, for years. But at the first opportunity, they suspended their procedural rules to rush this bill through committee.

They suspended their rules to propose a bill that would prevent public access to all agency e-mail. What an invitation for abuse. Want something to remain confidential? Send it by e-mail. Pennsylvania would be the only state in the country that has such an exemption.

They also suspended their rules to propose a bill that would exempt all "correspondence and related records by and among a public official, a public official's staff and an agency." What could possibly justify such an overbroad exemption for communications between public officials and public employees?

Finally, the bill would not apply to most documents in existence at the time the bill is passed and would preserve all existing court decisions. Isn't the idea to make government more open? Why would we want to prevent access to pre-existing documents or preserve the court ruling that PennDOT's lists of most dangerous roads and intersections are not public records?

It is widely recognized that Pennsylvania has one of the worst open records laws in the country. A 2002 survey by the Better Government Association ranked Pennsylvania's open records environment 48th out of the 50 states. The Commonwealth tied with Alaska, and only Alabama and South Dakota were considered worse. House Bill 443, as amended, just might get us to 50th place. If this is reform, we don't want it.



Tim Williams is president of the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18948374&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468562&rfi=6

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/

PA Democratic Side: Partisanship In the House

DeWeese pledges support for Pa. open records legislation
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
04/07/2007
Updated 04/07/2007 12:05:29 AM EDT

While admitting that he was not initially an aggressive supporter of improved open records legislation, state Rep. H. William DeWeese, D-Waynesburg, said Friday that he is now unequivocally behind the push for reform.


During a taping of "Behind the Headlines" for HSTV, DeWeese accompanied freshman state Rep. Timothy S. Mahoney, D-South Union, to discuss the sea of change sweeping through Harrisburg. DeWeese gave Mahoney full credit for pushing the open records issue to the forefront.

continued

DeWeese said so far this legislative term, the legislature has accepted 31 out of the 32 changes proposed by the Speaker's Reform Commission, of which Mahoney is a member. DeWeese said the legislature will no longer be voting in the middle of the night; thus a pay raise issue will never take place again. Also, DeWeese said there is now a 24-hour waiting period before legislation is put to a vote.

summing up why he has decided to support reform legislation, DeWeese quoted French poet and novelist Victor Hugo. "Nothing is so powerful as an idea whose time has come," DeWeese said. The majority leader said Mahoney was the "crystallizing influence" that prompted him to move forward with changes. "I have enough God-given common sense to know that if I don't lead reform, that reform will go on without me," DeWeese said.

Mahoney said while there are several reform proposals out there, including one by Gov. Ed Rendell, he is glad DeWeese is supporting his legislation. "Governor Rendell has taken my proposal and made it his own, so I'm happy Bill jumped on mine," Mahoney said.

DeWeese pointed out that he appointed Mahoney to the Speaker's Reform Commission despite the fact that Mahoney did not initially vote for DeWeese as Democratic leader. DeWeese also discussed the history of how Dennis O'Brien, R-Philadelphia, became Speaker of the House as a Republican despite a one-vote Democratic majority.

DeWeese said he hatched the plan to wrestle the speakership away from Republican John Perzel of Philadelphia County when it became apparent that DeWeese did not have the votes to win the position. "I was two or three votes short, but Perzel was seven short," DeWeese said.

He said when it became apparent that the Mahoneys of the legislature would be ascending, he made a pact with O'Brien in which O'Brien would be named Speaker and DeWeese would remain majority leader.

Mahoney said he doesn't believe if Perzel had retained the speaker position there would have been any chance of reform. "(Perzel) starting reform would be like me going back to college, where I never went," Mahoney said. He said Perzel did little for reform in the 12 years his party was in the majority in the state House. Democrats now hold a slim 102-101 majority over Republicans.

DeWeese said the only recommendation out of 32 that was not approved out of the Speaker's Reform Commission was a proposal to take away the power to substantively amend bills from the Appropriations Committee. DeWeese pointed out that the power to amend bills in the Rules Committee, of which he is chairman, was taken away at his own behest. "I gave up overwhelming power as chairman of the Rules Committee," DeWeese said.

While the power to amend bills is still preserved in the Appropriations Committee, DeWeese said it is possible that could change in the future. He said it is now a "different world" with access to the Internet than it was when records had to be accessed in person in Harrisburg.

When asked about assertions that O'Brien will be a puppet for DeWeese, Mahoney said O'Brien is not a puppet for anyone. "His heart is with autistic children and Perzel wouldn't cooperate," Mahoney said. "I don't think he's a 'yes man' for anyone."

DeWeese said that historically O'Brien and Perzel never had a good political relationship, although their legislative districts are beside each other. "They weren't rubbing elbows like me and Tim Mahoney," DeWeese said.

DeWeese said helping O'Brien ascend to the Speaker of the House position was a "sweet, sweet victory," even though DeWeese did not get to regain the job himself.


http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18180084&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Related

Confident Democrats choose DeWeese to be House speaker
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06340/743825-179.stm