Undervoted Ballots Need Solution

Undervoted ballots to some are a unique individual voter statement during an election. A voter can choose to vote for less than the number of candidates in a single race, and/or leave portions of the ballot blank, or undervoted. There's a but. Historically, there has been absolutely no way to determine whether the voter made a mistake, or whether the voting system - even if the system was the mechanical lever machines used in Pennsylvania and elsewhere for decades, or the current replacements, the direct recording "electronic" machines, are responsible for such omissions.

Even if paper ballots are used, there is no guarantee the ballot will not contain stray marks later to be interpreted by a "review" board, and there is no way to check whether the ballots are handled correctly.

The solution: simple. A selection on the voting system titled, No Choice. In other words in a race where only one candidate is to be selected the voter could select No Choice. In a race where 2 candidates are to be selected, the voter could select one candidate's name and ignore a second selection by choosing No Choice.

Voters should have a right to vote for nobody at the polling place and have their voice heard.

Counties stand by touch-screen voting

By staff and wire reports
Friday, October 26, 2007


On Election Day, residents in Allegheny, Westmoreland and Butler counties will vote on the same brand of touch-screen electronic machines widely blamed for skewing a Florida congressional race last year.
Electronic machines have caused controversy ever since Congress mandated the transition after the 2000 election debacle in Florida.

In all, 19 of 31 Western Pennsylvania counties use Election Systems & Software's iVotronics voting machine -- the same one used in Florida.

Armstrong County is the only local county that doesn't.

...Federal funding paid all $12.5 million for Allegheny County's machines for the 2006 primary election.

Critics contend some problems don't get noticed because what voters punch into the machines can't be monitored.

"I don't see how they can say the machines are reliable when they have no way of showing whether the machines are reliable," said Chester County attorney Marian K. Schneider, who took state officials to court last year to ban use of iVotronics and other machines.

The case is before the state Supreme Court.

"Touch-screen machines are bad for voting," said one of the plaintiffs, Danny Sleator, 53, of Squirrel Hill, a Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor. "They're too vulnerable to both machine errors (and) calibration errors ... as well as nefarious manipulation of the vote."

Black Box Voting, a nonprofit elections watchdog, reports e-voting glitches -- such as 19,000 voters in one Indiana county somehow casting 144,000 votes in 2003, and the disappearance of 70 ballot "memory cards" in Ohio last year.

U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has pushed for a law requiring all machines to produce a voter-verified record. The bill is awaiting House action.

In Sarasota County, Fla., the U.S. Government Accountability Office investigated whether 1,590 iVotronics machines created 18,000 undervotes, which occur when a person doesn't vote for every open office on a ballot.

It decided "certain components of the voting systems" worked correctly, but said more tests were needed to determine if the machines were defective.

The 18,000 undervotes occurred in Republican-leaning Sarasota County, where Democrat Christine Jennings edged out Republican Vern Buchanan by 6,855 votes. Jennings, however, lost the 13th Congressional District race by 369 votes.

ES&S, the iVotronic maker, said a review concluded "there is no evidence to support the position that the iVotronic touch-screens caused votes to be lost."

"Each piece of technology, each voting system --- including the iVotronic -- is secure," spokeswoman Amanda Brown said. "And it goes through a number of reviews ... to ensure it's safe and accurate and secure."

GAO findings have little impact on Sarasota County, whose residents voted to return to paper ballots during the same election in which the undervotes occurred. The machines cost them $4.7 million six years ago. Officials only have recouped about $1 million.

"Voter confidence is important and if it's going to make the people feel better and trust the system they're using, then it's a good thing," said Kathy Dent, Sarasota County's supervisor of elections. "There's no such thing as a perfect system."

Mary Kohart is a Philadelphia attorney who's worked to ban some machines.

"We can do way better and we should do way better," Kohart said. "Odds are that the election will be accurately counted. ... But, this is an election. We shouldn't have to rely on the odds."

------

Tribune-Review News Service reporters and staff writer Charlie Ban contributed to this report.

http://pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_534707.html

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

Voter Fraud EZ Pass New York Style

October 22, 2007 -- ALBANY - State election officials are worried that Gov. Spitzer's plan to allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses will make it difficult for them to catch people voting illegally.

"There has been concern," state Board of Elections spokesman Lee Daghlian told The Post.

While it is up to the local boards of election to determine who is eligible to vote, it is rare that election officials check into a person's legal status, particularly if they have identifying information on their voter-registration form like a driver's license or the last four digits of a Social Security number, Daghlian said.

In order to register, a person must sign an affidavit stating that they are an American citizen.

"You assume that people don't lie, and that's what the form says," Daghlian said. "It's an affidavit you sign under penalty of perjury."

But Daghlian concedes, "Nobody checks it" to determine its validity.

At the polls, voters are asked to show some form of photo ID, like a driver's license, to prove their identity, Daghlian said.

"I suppose it would be [tough to catch] if someone wanted to take advantage of the system and try to get a number of people registered who aren't citizens and went ahead and got them driver's licenses," he said.

Spitzer last month announced that beginning in December, the state will allow illegal aliens to obtain driver's licenses by no longer requiring that applicants provide Social Security numbers or letters that a person is not eligible for such a number.

Critics of the plan expressed concerns about homeland security and said it would make New York ripe for voter fraud.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10222007/news/regionalnews/elex_bigs_fear_fraud_in_gov_li.htm

Inhofe Warns of Global Warming Laws
October 23, 2007 01:39 PM ET

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-desk/2007/10/23/inhofe-warns-of-global-warming-laws.html

Jerome Corsi on Glenn Beck TV show
WND reporter discusses latest stories on CNN Headline News
WND reporter, columnist and best-selling author Jerome Corsi will be a guest tonight on CNN Headline News' "Glenn Beck" show.

The show airs at 7 p.m., 9 p.m. and midnight Eastern.

Corsi is the author of the New York Times best-selling book, "The Late Great USA," which charges the federal government's unwillingness to enforce immigration laws and border security is, at least in part, a result of plans to promote political, social and economic integration of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58287

PA effort alter Electoral College Protection Underway

Full Press Snup Constitution Underway in PA

Had known about the National Popular Vote Initiative months ago, watching to see if PA would make an attempt to follow suit. Unfortunately, the misguided are at it again attempting to alter the intent of the Founding Fathers by implementing the Electoral College for Presidential Elections. Most simply don';t understand why, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution adopted the protective measure, and don't want to. Every individual who runs for the presidency understands, and that's why you won't hear them demanding the Electoral College be abolished.

Well, except for Hillary Clinton, who now hails from New York...that explains a lot.

PA could join effort to alter electoral college vote count 10/22/2007
Tim Lambert and Radio Pennsylvania
(Harrisburg) -- A multi-state effort to change the way votes in the electoral college are counted has the backing of a Pennsylvania lawmaker. Democratic Representative Mark Cohen of Philadelphia has proposed committing the Commonwealth's electoral votes to the winner of the national popular tally for president. He says both the state and the country will benefit according to an analysis from the Cato Institute.

00022_cohen-1.mp3
Vermont lawmaker Christopher Pearson is working with a number of states on similar efforts, as part of the group "National Popular Vote."

00023_pearson-5.mp3
Even if Cohen's plan passes in Pennsylvania, the agreement wouldn't go into effect until states representing the majority of the total Electoral votes have signed on to the effort. So far, 47 other states have introduced similar bills -- with only one, Maryland, signing the legislation into law.

Ballot machines up for court review
By Justin Vellucci
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, October 21, 2007


On Election Day, residents in 19 of 31 Western Pennsylvania counties will vote on the same brand of touch-screen electronic machines widely blamed for skewing a Florida congressional race last year.
Area officials say they haven't encountered major problems since they started using Election Systems & Software's iVotronics in 2006. But critics contend some problems don't get noticed because what voters punch into the machines can't be monitored.

"I don't see how they can say the machines are reliable when they have no way of showing whether the machines are reliable," said Chester County attorney Marian K. Schneider, who took state officials to court last year to ban use of iVotronics and other machines.

The case is before the state Supreme Court.

"Touch-screen machines are bad for voting," said one of the plaintiffs, Danny Sleator, 53, of Squirrel Hill, a Carnegie Mellon University computer science professor. "They're too vulnerable to both machine errors (and) calibration errors ... as well as nefarious manipulation of the vote."
"This is an essential issue for maintaining our democracy," said Jeanne Zang, 58, of Sewickley, another plaintiff in the lawsuit. "We all need to be concerned that our votes are being counted properly."

Electronic machines have caused controversy ever since Congress mandated the transition to electronic voting after the 2000 election debacle in Florida.

Black Box Voting, a nonprofit elections watchdog, reports e-voting glitches -- such as 19,000 voters in one Indiana county somehow casting 144,000 votes in 2003, and the disappearance of 70 ballot "memory cards" in Ohio last year.

U.S. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has pushed for a law requiring all machines to produce a voter-verified record. The bill is out of committee and awaiting House action.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_533801.html

Marine faces court-martial, not for murder, in Haditha deaths

Courts-Martial for 2 in Haditha Deaths
Oct 20, 7:39 AM (ET)
By CHELSEA J. CARTER
SAN DIEGO (AP) - The highest-ranking U.S. serviceman to face court-martial involving combat since Vietnam was ordered to trial Friday for failing to investigate the killings of 24 Iraqis, including women and children, in Haditha two years ago.

Another Marine was also ordered to face court-martial for charges including involuntary manslaughter.

Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani faces charges of dereliction of duty and violation of a lawful order on allegations that he mishandled the aftermath of the Nov. 19, 2005, shootings, which followed a roadside bombing that killed a Marine driver.

Chessani was commander of the Camp Pendleton-based 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment that has been the focus of the biggest prosecution of U.S. troops in the Iraq war.

He is the most senior U.S. serviceman since the Vietnam War to face a court-martial for actions or decisions made in combat, said Gary Solis, a former Marine Corps prosecutor and judge who teaches law of war at Georgetown University Law Center.

One of Chessani's men, Lance Cpl. Stephen B. Tatum, was ordered to face a court-martial on charges of involuntary manslaughter, reckless endangerment and aggravated assault. He is one of four Marines originally charged with murder in the killings.

The decision by Lt. Gen. James Mattis to send Tatum to court-martial comes after the investigating officer said last month that the evidence was too weak to prosecute him. But Tatum will not be tried on the murder count he originally faced.

Tatum, of Edmond, Okla., shot and killed civilians, but "he did so because of his training and the circumstances he was placed in, not to exact revenge and commit murder," Lt. Col. Paul Ware wrote last month in recommending he not face court-martial.

Chessani's civilian defense attorney, Brian Rooney, told The Associated Press he was disappointed with the general's recommendation.

"I can tell you this decision by Gen. Mattis today is going to have a negative affect on all officers, including battalion commanders," he said, adding it would undermine the trust between commanders and their troops. "Are they going to be able to trust the word of their junior officers, senior enlisted and junior enlisted?"

If convicted on all counts, Chessani faces up to three years in prison.

He is the second colonel to be court-martialed over actions in Iraq. Army Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan of Fredericksburg, Va., was convicted of abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison, said Tom Umberg, a retired Army colonel and former military prosecutor

The decision to send Chessani to trial mirrored the conclusion the hearing officer reached at his preliminary hearing. Col. Christopher Conlin said Chessani "failed to thoroughly and accurately report and investigate a combat engagement that clearly needed scrutiny."

In his report, Conlin, an infantry officer, blasted Chessani for failing to go to the scene of the November 2005 killings immediately after they had occurred, even though he knew 24 "neutrals" were dead.

"To not have made every attempt to be on scene as this action developed, or to not have at least reviewed this action in detail ... is in itself negligent," Conlin wrote. "The fact that one fireteam was solely responsible for 24 deaths in all direct fire actions should have solicited more than passing interest from the senior leadership of the battalion."

At Chessani's preliminary hearing, held in June at Camp Pendleton, several witnesses testified local Iraqis had complained to Chessani in the days after the killings and that he promised to look into what had happened.

But Chessani said he never ordered a formal investigation because he believed the deaths resulted from lawful combat.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071020/D8SCUITO0.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

"Save Second Base" Promotes Teen Sex

Seriously, is this country going down the Orwell double-speak road. Quicker than Flash Gordon can get to the crime scene.

It's OK to promote t-shirts which have a known sensual double-meaning to tweens and teens - at school? Just let them sell the tees...

That's the position anchors of Saturday's Fox 'n Friends apparently took while interviewing a couple of teenage girls who tried to sell the t-shirts at a school football game. The youth were denied access by the school district because the tee's contained a slogan with an "indecent" double-meaning which is not allowable under the school's guidebook rules.

We wonder what would have been said if a couple of 16 to 18-year old "boys" were trying to sell the t-shirts at middle schools? How about at Pre-K public schools? tiny ones for the little tots. They'd have been hauled away for sexual harassment and pedophilia as quick as you could say "Save Second Base."

Being of a libertarian bent, and a supporter of the first amendment, I don't like the fact that the school board can establish rules for what kind of speech is allowable on school property. They limit one kind of speech, then they can limit another kind of speech. There isn't an end to their power of limitation.

But they can legally do so and they did in this case deny the students access to sell the t-shirts on school property.

Where were the parents? Do the parents think the Save Second Base tees are funny? Humorous? Not promoting sexual activity among their own children?

Are they out of their minds?

The odder situation is the charity which adopted the slogan as a way to raise breast cancer awareness.

The intention of the slogan is to be what - a joke? To whom? Teenage boys, teenage girls?

In an society where teen pregnancies present an ever increasing societal problem, the promotion only raises snickers, not awareness of breast cancer.

The charity should pull the t-shirts now. The charity shouldn't continue to use the youth of our country to well you know the word - a product that clearly encourages youth sexual activity before the youth are mature enough to handle the potential resulting pregnancy.

Save Second Base promotes teen sex.

The idea strikes out among anybody with any common sense left.

Political Watch: Government Intrusion into Recreation

This is why the local push for recreational expansion, park development, and public swimming pools.

legislation which would allow local governments to work together, as well as with non-profit corporations, on recreation facilities and programs

a three-bill package, sponsored by Senator Michael Brubaker (R-36) that would allow boroughs and townships to partner with counties, cities, townships, boroughs, towns, school districts, or non-profits to acquire property for, create, or operate recreational facilities, such as a swimming pools and ballparks.

http://www.pasenategop.com/news/archived/2007/1007/regola-101707.htm

Beware formation of either a government "authority" or a government "non-profit" and especially watch for the grant monies to pop up to flow to non-profits to study and development new land plans.

We don't have to think too hard to know Fay Penn Economic Development Council's new "strategic plan" will definitely address "recreational" "open-spaces" and greenspace opportunities, maybe there will be "recreational" keystone opportunity zones with the tax-freedom for 15 years or more...

Little notice, just a one-liner, to date:

Work is under way for the first-ever Fayette County park, recreation, open space and greenway plan.

Stenson leaving county planning office
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/19/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18929575&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6

Herald-Standard

Post to:

Buried in the article but at least there in print. "Work is under way for the first-ever Fayette County park, recreation, open space and greenway plan."

Oh really? Now the county is going to assume another function like the zoning it isn't state mandated to do, or obligated to do under the state Constitution?

Will commission board members determine it's OK to use some of that loan pool and bond issue money for new recreational projects in the county? Then they can tout how many jobs they've retained, or helped create? They can claim success in promoting economic development by developing parks, recreational facilities, open-spaces, and greenways?

They can partner with a non-profit and everything is OK - the private sector is involved?

The state on the other hand is an enabler of counties spending our tax monies for things best left to the private enterprise to accomplish.

Look what's coming down the road, before "The Road" is completed..

legislation which would allow local governments to work together, as well as with non-profit corporations, on recreation facilities and programs... three-bill package, sponsored by Senator Michael Brubaker (R-36) that would allow boroughs and townships to partner with counties, cities, townships, boroughs, towns, school districts, or non-profits to acquire property for, create, or operate recreational facilities, such as a swimming pools and ballparks...

http://www.pasenategop.com/news/archived/2007/1007/regola-101707.htm

Political Watch: Government Intrusion into Recreation

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/10/political-watch-government-intrusion.html

Yep, let's watch to see which county commissioners vote to use that Washington-Fayette loan pool and/or bond issue money for one of the reasons it was designed for - "tourism" - and tourism-related projects which could fall under county recreational economic development plans.

They still know y'all are asleep, people.

What about spending some of that bond money for the constitutiional duties the county commissioners are obligated to do - like making sure the voter registration database of some almost 90,000 names is squeaky clean - purged of names of the deceased, and other ineligibles?

The commissioners don't have a plan for ensuring every name on the voter registration database is eligible and accurate, but they'll quickly implement a first-ever Fayette County park, recreation, open space and greenway plan.

Not a function of government, people. It's another function they've adopted to do so they can spend more of your tax dollars for your well being.

And you let it all happen without protest.



(Net the Truth Online)

10/17/07 - Senate Local Government Committee Report
The Senate Local Government Committee today unanimously approved legislation which would allow local governments to work together, as well as with non-profit corporations, on recreation facilities and programs, according to Committee Chairman Senator Bob Regola (R-39).

Senate Local Government Committee Report
Approves bills encouraging intergovernmental cooperation
The Senate Local Government Committee today unanimously approved legislation which would allow local governments to work together, as well as with non-profit corporations, on recreation facilities and programs, according to Committee Chairman Senator Bob Regola (R-39).

The Committee approved a three-bill package, sponsored by Senator Michael Brubaker (R-36) that would allow boroughs and townships to partner with counties, cities, townships, boroughs, towns, school districts, or non-profits to acquire property for, create, or operate recreational facilities, such as a swimming pools and ballparks.



http://www.pasenategop.com/

Presidential candidates inner circle

We can't help but wonder whether anybody is tracking the affiliations of the candidates with the Council on Foreign Relations

Washington Post The Inner Circle

tracking the inner circle of 2008 Presidential candidates

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/archives.htm

the Fix by Chris Cillizza

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

Children Under age 6 at risk over counter cold medication

Doctors press FDA on safety of cold medicines for children under 6
October 18, 2007

By ANDREW BRIDGES

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON — Cold and cough medicines recently pulled from sale for infants and toddlers shouldn’t be given to children as old as 5, either, pediatricians told government health advisers Thursday.

The expert advisers to the Food and Drug Administration began a two-day meeting to consider a petition from the pediatricians that seeks in part a government statement saying the over-the-counter medicines shouldn’t be used in children under 6 because they don’t help them and aren’t safe.

The FDA has yet to act on the petition, in part pending a recommendation expected late Friday from the joint panel of outside experts in pediatrics and nonprescription drugs, said the agency’s Dr. Joel Schiffenbauer.

The meeting opens a week after drugmakers pulled from sale oral cough and cold medicines for children under 2. The drug industry maintains the widely used medicines are safe and work but can lead to overdoses when misused in infants.

However the petitioners, including Baltimore city health officials, argue that the medicines not only don’t work in children up to age 6 but that they can be dangerous as well.

While the medicines have been marketed for use in children for decades — ad spending now is roughly $50 million a year — it has long been acknowledged there is negligible or no data from studies in the very young to show they are safe and work. Worse, some studies suggest the medicines are no better than dummy pills in treating cold and cough symptoms in young children, the petitioners said.

“When a treatment is ineffective, its risks — if not zero — always will exceed its benefits,” said Dr. Michael Shannon, a Children’s Hospital Boston pediatrician and Harvard Medical School professor who was another of the petitioners.

The drugs — including some Dimetapp, Pediacare, Robitussin and Triaminic products — have never been tested in children, which a previous FDA panel noted as long ago as 1972. Drugmakers instead have used extrapolated data from studies in adults to come up with dosing recommendations based on a child’s age or size.

While the focus of the petition and the FDA is on children under 6, the joint panel of experts will be asked if there’s evidence that these drugs work in children up to age 12.

The medicines are widely used, with an estimated 95 million packages sold for infant and toddler use each year.

“If these medicines are allegedly not effective or materially unsafe, how is the purchase of millions — hundreds of millions — of doses by parents explained?” asked Dr. George Goldstein, the panel’s nonvoting industry representative.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071018/NEWS07/71018017/-1/PRINT

Cough and Cold Medication WarningsPosted Oct-11-07 07:35:16 PDTThe FDA has issued a public health advisory instructing parents not to give Over The Counter cough and cold remedies to children younger than age 2. This warning expands on concerns voiced earlier this year that anithistamine-decongestant cough suppressant medication is unsafe for young children.

Three key ingredients common to prescription and Over the Counter Cough and Cold remedies have been linked to infant deaths. Psudoephedrine, dextromethorphan, and carbinoxamine-containing Cough and Cold Medicines should never be used for children under 2. The safety of these medications is being investigated for use with children under age 6 as well.

http://blogs.ebay.com/crystalsforever/entry/Cough-and-Cold-Medication-Warnings/_W0QQidZ341482017

Search

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2006-40%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=cold+medication+under+age+6&btnG=Search

Lou Dobbs slams NY Governor Drivers' Licenses for Illegals

Update
Illegals OK'd to drive in N.Y.
By Joseph Curl Washington Times
October 20, 2007

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/NATION/110200052/1001


See today's Lou Dobbs Tonight program for Part 2 of the action by Governor Eliot Spitzer to grant illegal aliens a "right" to New York drivers' licenses which will look just like the licenses taxpaying citizens obtain.

Dobbs also landbasted Hillary Clinton's double-speak position on the licenses, unlike the New York Daily news which presents Hillary's dual position as if it's well, not.

Hillary cheers, but doesn't back Spitzer license plan
BY CELESTE KATZ
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Friday, October 19th 2007, 9:54 AM

Democratic White House front-runner Hillary Clinton stood up for Gov. Spitzer's efforts to pull illegal immigrants "out of the shadows" - but stopped short of backing his controversial plan to grant them driver's licenses.

Clinton told a newspaper in New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation presidential primary, that Spitzer's got the right idea.

"I know exactly what Gov. Spitzer's trying to do and it makes a lot of sense, because he's trying to get people out of the shadows," Clinton told the editorial board of the Nashua Telegraph. "He's trying to say, 'Okay, come forward and we will give you this license.'"

Spitzer has faced strong opposition - even from many fellow Democrats - for proposing to grant licenses to undocumented residents, insisting it will help track criminals and improve road safety.

A recent Siena poll showed an overwhelming 72% of New Yorkers oppose Spitzer's plan.

Clinton was careful to say immigration - which has become an explosive issue in the 2008 race - must be addressed on a national level.

"I mean, this can't work state-by-state. It has to be looked at comprehensively," said the former First Lady, who applauded President Bush for attempting immigration reform.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/19/2007-10-19_hillary_cheers_but_doesnt_back_spitzer_l.html

Battle Over Licenses For Illegals in New York Intensifies; Interview With Laura Ingraham

Aired October 17, 2007 - 18:00 ET

And Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York apparently determined to ram his proposals to give away illegal alien driver's licenses down the throats of voters and lawmakers. Spitzer is using what he calls steamroller tactics. We will have the report.

And I will have a few words for the governor and "The New York Times" about honesty and responsibility in politics and journalism.

...Coming up here next, Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York using every tactic possible to crush opposition to his proposal to give away driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Bill Tucker will have the report for us tonight -- Bill.

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, Spitzer earned a reputation for being a pugnacious attorney general and he hasn't gotten any nicer now that he's living in the governor's mansion -- Lou.

DOBBS: Thank you very much.

And I will have a few thoughts of my own about, well, journalism and politics, a few thoughts for "The New York Times," as well as the good governor.

All of that and a great deal more coming up here, including one county in Virginia refusing to be intimidated by socio-ethnocentric special interests, and corporate America standing up against illegal immigration. We will have that special report.

DOBBS: Well, if you're concerned about this country's open borders and absolutely unlimited illegal immigration, it turns out, despite what the White House is saying, the congressional leadership is saying, and, of course, corporate America and socio-ethnic interests are saying, it turns out you're in good company. And the lie is ending.

It is now clear that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to giving driver's licenses, for example, to illegal aliens. A brand-new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll just released shows 76 percent of all Americans oppose that idea. Less than a quarter support it.

The issue is back in the national spotlight because of New York's Governor Eliot Spitzer, a man I have called, as "The New York Times" reported, facetiously, a genius, because he wants to give away driver's licenses to illegal aliens.

Governor Spitzer is ignoring public opinion in his own state showing fierce opposition as well, to the plan. He's also ignoring a rising revolt within his own party.

But, as Bill Tucker now reports, there are charges tonight that Governor Spitzer is retaliating against his opponent, and, in turn, hurting the very people he is responsible to represent.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER (voice-over): New York State funds health care to the economically disadvantaged and the uninsured, but now comes word that the governor has cut more than $400,000 worth of state health care in education funding to the district of one of the governor's staunchest opponents of his plan to give illegal aliens driver's licenses.

Almost one quarter of that was for funding for a free medical clinic for children. The cuts were no accident, says Republican Assemblyman Jim Tedisco.

JAMES TEDISCO (R), NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLYMAN: He wants me to back off my position of keeping this a secure state by not coming out in opposition to giving illegal aliens driver's licenses. And, if I don't, he reaches around me and goes into my assembly district and takes money away from kids who don't have health insurances.

TUCKER: The governor's office says the cuts were not retaliatory. A spokesman notes that ample discretionary funds were available to the assemblyman for the projects, but that he chose not to fund the projects.

Going against Spitzer is tough. He's already threatened the Senate majority leader with an IRS investigation for getting in his way. He's threatening to sue the county clerks for not implementing his policy.

It's a style that Spitzer, himself, admits is akin to a steamroller. Ironically, almost as a reminder of what is at stake surrounding this driver's license dispute, a major identify fraud ring was busted in the New York City borough of queens on Wednesday; 41 people have been charged with supplying fraudulent government identity documents such as resident alien cards, Social Security cards and driver's licenses.

(END VIDEOTAPE) TUCKER: Now, the point that was made repeatedly today at the announcement of the indictments, driver's licenses are source documents from which, Lou, fraudulent identities can be built.

DOBBS: And often are. We have had huge arrests just in the last couple of days here in New York on more document fraud, identify fraud, and, of course, for the purpose of perpetuating illegal immigration in this country.

This governor, he's described himself as a steamroller?

TUCKER: Oh, yes. And, well, in a family-friendly way, he said, I'm an F'ing steamroller, and I will roll over you and anybody else that gets in my way.

He was responding to Assemblyman Tedisco earlier this year. Different topic, but Tedisco is accusing him of being a bully, basically.

DOBBS: Well, he sounds like he's accusing himself. And you said family-friendly. That's because you used that expression, rather than the governor's.

TUCKER: Yes. The governor didn't censor it.

(LAUGHTER)

DOBBS: Well, let me give the governor a description that he might consider for himself. How about spoiled rich kid brat who is treating New York residents as if he thinks they're his rich father's tenants, instead of citizens? I wonder what the governor would think of that.

And the governor, by the way -- I want to repeat here, Bill, we have invited Governor Spitzer to come on this broadcast and discuss and debate this issue. The man doesn't have the backbone. He may be what he calls a steamroller, but I think he's a weak-kneed, spineless steamroller, who is absolutely acting against the interests of his citizens and ignoring, ignoring the will of New York State citizens.

It's absolutely an outrage.

Bill Tucker, thank you very much.

Well, later on this broadcast, we will hear from two New York State officials, one Republican and one Democrat, who have been ordered to give driver's licenses away to illegal aliens. I will also have a few thoughts about what "The New York Times" today reported as my crusade against the governor's plan to give away illegal alien driver's licenses.

And I will set the record straight on just a few thoughts from both Albany, the governor's thoughts, and, of course, some of the reporting of "The New York Times" -- a little irony there.

And another CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll just released finding more than half of all Americans say police in their communities should -- should be allowed to arrest illegal aliens solely for breaking immigration laws.

Prince William County in Virginia is one such community already demanding and taking action. It voted today for one of the country's toughest crackdowns on illegal immigration. Its decision could have implications for local communities, towns and cities all across the nation.

As Lisa Sylvester now reports, the open borders, amnesty lobby is fighting this new effort with protests, boycotts and, of course, a federal lawsuit.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0710/17/ldt.01.html

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

County Commission Race: Fayette Democrats Force or Farce?

Sorry I have to disagree, C.J.

With two Democrat Primary winners, (Vicites and Zapotosky) between them collecting some what 17,000 votes, if recollection serves, and another Democrat, Foltz, and Democrat/Independent Cellurale, and with an overwhelming voter registration edge of 3 to 1, the Democrats are poised to reclaim the majority in the county commissioners office.

They'd become a farce and not a force locally if they don't.

They're not going to throw away their one chance to regain the majority.

They'll have to plunk (that is vote for only one) for either one of the two Democratic Primary winners, Zapotosky or Vicites, or plunk for Cellurale or Foltz. They can't chance as they did in the 2003 General Election splitting votes and bypassing Primary Democrat contender Bill Lincoln to give Republicans their first majority on the board since the 1930s.

As a seasoned political junkie recently said on the Foltz program, before Foltz announced a write-in campaign, if there were 3 Democrats running, a Democrat majority would be a slam dunk as the lowest Democrat Primary vote-getter far outpaces any Republican candidate in either the Primary or General Election.

With Democrat registered Foltz in the political mix as a write-in candidate, the Democrats chances are increased, but only if Democrats "plunk" rather than "split" their votes.

The same with Cellurale. If Democrats plunk for only her, and not split a vote between a Democrat and one of the Republicans, she'd gain far more votes just by virtue of that 3 to 1 voter registration edge.

2003s General election was an anomaly because Bill Lincoln was not only disliked for himself, but also for his tight association with Fayette's Democratic Party leader, Fred Lebder.

That isn't happening this time around. Zapotosky is publicly supported by Lebder and he still received the most votes. Even from those who formerly proclaimed dislike for Lebder. Go figure.

The Vicites base dropped over the course of his 3 terms, but he still came within viability distance of Zapotosky., with only approximately 1000 votes difference.

If just the same voters vote similarly for one or the other of the pair, and don't split their votes, those two are assured the two majority seats.

What most should have learned from the 1999 election, too, when Sean Cavanagh switched from Democrat to Independent and back to Democrat, after his win - not only can there be a two-seat majority of Democrats, the entire administration could legally retain a 3-member Democrat board of county commissioners.

In other words, Foltz by virtue of his notoriety, and the Democrat voter registration swamp, could actually get more votes if voters "plunk" for him rather than either one or both of the Republican candidates.

The same could happen with Cellurale who would then be legally free to switch back to Democrat after her win.

To assure the Democrat majority, Democrats will have to refrain this time around from casting their votes for either of the two Republican candidates. Otherwise, what you said would hold true.

I don't believe Democrats are willing to chance letting the commissioners' office slip away again.

The only way they can assure winning is to plunk for one of the 4 Democrats.

Check the results in November to see what happened

http://server.lcsys.net/vote/vote.asp

C.J.

Foltz running as write-in in upcoming election
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/19/2007 12:06:03 AM EDT

Added: Thursday October 18, 2007 at 08:33 AM EST
Interesting
So, I wonder who "put Foltz into the race.?"

Was it Zapotosky trying to take votes from Vicities?

This will only help Vicities and Zimmerlink, because Sampson, Cellurale and Foltz doesn't stand a chance.

Zapotosky was already guaranteed the third spot, but now maybe it will backfire and someone might step into Zappy's spot.

If the Republicans stand together and vote straight ticket for Zimmerlink and Sampson like the dems do, then the democratic vote will get split 4 ways between Zappy, Celluwell, Vicitys, and Foltz.

To paraphrase another source..."Run Bob, Run!"
CJ, Dawson, PA

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=18928956&brd=2280&pag=797&dept_id=468520&startrow=1&maxrows=10

House legislator re-election bow-out?

Tangretti's aide will seek the House seat
By The Tribune-Review
Friday, October 19, 2007


New Stanton Councilman Scott Sistek on Thursday announced he would be a candidate for the state House seat held by Rep Tom Tangretti, just two weeks after his boss announced he would step down at the end of 2008.

Sistek, 48, has worked as Tangretti's legislative assistant since 2005.

"I want there to be a seamless transition, from Tom Tangretti's 20 years in the Legislature to my tenure," Sistek said...

...He said his platform would mirror Tangretti's current agenda of pushing transportation improvements in the region, property tax reform for the elderly, enhanced health care programs and legislative reform.
That latter issue is one Tangretti has recently taken head-on, criticizing House Democratic leadership about an ongoing grand jury probe by state Attorney General Tom Corbett over whether legislative bonuses to staffers were linked to campaign work they performed.

Sistek yesterday did not shy away from Tangretti's statements.

"I think we need to try to bring the dignity of a legislator back to Harrisburg," Sistek said.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribunereview/news/westmoreland/s_533412.html

Will Write-in Candidate Bob Foltz alter pro KOZ position?

Will radio talk show host Bob Foltz who will seek selection as a Fayette County commissioner in the November 6th General Election as a write-in candidate, take a different position on Keystone Opportunity Zones than he has in the past?

In the recent past few years, from 2002 to 2007, dozens upon dozens of calls had been made to Foltz's Let's Talk program concerning Keystone Opportunity Zones.

In fact, I had been a guest on Foltz's program at least twice to talk specifically about Keystone Opportunity Zones. Once with co-guests Mike Ellis, former editor of the Herald-Standard, and Paul Sunyak, current editorial board editor of the Herald-Standard.

Foltz was presented with material supporting my opposition to KOZs during these guest appearances on his radio program.

So Foltz is not unaware of the objections to KOZs for at least a five year period.

Foltz was presented with documentation about the unfairness of KOZs, the unconstitutionality of KOZs according to the PA uniformity clause as well as numerous calls to his program when the matter of expansion of KOZs arose in 2002 and 2004.

Foltz also received more recent calls to his program when state Representative Timothy Mahoney was a guest on his program. See post: Keystone Opportunity Zones Unfair Agrees State Representative Tim Mahoney

http://netthetruthonline.blogspot.com/2007/09/keystone-opportunity-zones-unfair.html

So, Foltz is not unaware of the sentiment on the part of many, including state Representative Tim Mahoney, that KOZs are unfair.

Yet, throughout, the radio talk show host has not altered is position favoring KOZ for economic development, and particularly, having no objections to housing developments in KOZs.

When the current county commissioner administration was approached by Fay Penn Economic Development Council to alter zoning to allow for more residential houses to be built in an existing KOZ, two of the three commissioners opposed the request.

During calls to Bob Foltz at WMBS 590, Foltz revealed he supported the zoning and didn't have a problem with Keystone Opportunity Zones.

Foltz kept repeating - it's already a KOZ, it's already a KOZ, for heaven's sake, it's already a KOZ.

Foltz simply never got the point.

KOZ's are unfair and unconstitutional.

The commissioners have it in their power to make an attempt to revoke the status of KOZs in the county. To date, among those holding office who don't support KOZs for housing developments - current board chairwoman Angela Zimmerlink, and commissioner Vincent Vicites - neither have made that effort.

KOZs in Fayette remain while annually other houses and businesses not located in a tax free KOZ face potential loss of such for failure to pay local property taxes.

The local property taxes also are what are utilized by the three taxing bodies school district boards, county commission board, and municipalities, to pay off any bonds floated, or any loans which need repaid.

Fayette County commissioners in 2000 passed a bond issue and a loan pool to the tune of some 22 million. Just before that KOZ was adopted (1999) by school district boards, municipalities, and former county commissioners which included Vincent Vicites.

The KOZs were to run for a 10-year period.

Since that time, state legislation expanded KOZs and required authorization from the same boards. Again, on the county level, Commissioner Vincent Vicites authorized the expansion to take effect locally. The expansion altered the zones from a ten year period to a twelve year period. And more grants from state taxpayers were handed out over a longer period of time as a result.

When the KOZ was adopted back in 1999, the program was not promoted by Fay Penn to include housing (though the original legislation allowed for housing in KOZ.)

The former board of commissioners by a majority vote which did not include Vincent Vicites, in 2002/03 passed a zoning request to locate a golf-course and housing development for property that had been selected by Fay Penn for KOZ status three years earlier. (majority vote by Ron Nehls and Sean Cavanagh)

To his credit, Vicites did not support at that time KOZ for housing developments.

The issue arose again for the same property located in Springhill Township during 2005 with the current board of commissioners. Joseph Hardy supported the expanded zoning for the existing KOZ while Angela Zimmerlink and Vincent Vicites opposed the zoning expansion.

Bob Foltz was and has been well aware of the entirety of the issue after all of the calls to his radio program by myself and a couple of others who had opposed the KOZ designations from the beginning.

Foltz continued to support the KOZs, even for housing developments during the 2005-06 time period. To date, he has not reversed himself on his own stance even after a candidate he supports for the position of county commissioner, Vincent Zapotosky, appeared in a paid political announcement and noted to a caller that he opposed (now) housing developments in KOZs.

Also, a major event regarding KOZs arose with the current board of commissioners in 2004. The Fayette County Business (formerly Industrial/Business) Park had also been selected for KOZ status, some at least 100 acres back in 1999.

Fayette County Redevelopment Authority began promoting the Park as a business park shortly afterwards, and by 2004 were attracting interest from outside corporations. However, the South Union Township supervisors opposed KOZ designations for businesses. They rightly highlighted the KOZ status for the Park had been promoted for industrial development, not business development.

As a result of their opposition, the Redevelopment Authority agreed to have the KOZ status removed to allow for the entirety of the undeveloped acreage to be rezoned from industrial to commercial/business, with the authorization of the township supervisors.

The county commissioners, with the other two taxing bodies, then revoked the KOZ status, and that status was decertified.

So again, Foltz has observed history unfolding and has heard all about the objections to KOZs for many years.

Still, when Foltz had an opportunity while a radio talk show host to alter his position on KOZs, he DID NOT do so.

Now, as Bob Foltz seeks public office, he may appear to be wavering on his support for housing developments in KOZs, and/or KOZs all around.

As you would anyone else who alters a position, hold Bob Foltz as accountable - if he does so during any interviews or public candidate forums - for changing his position on KOZs.

We might not find out unless we are permitted to ask him a question if indeed he mounts a more public campaign for the office than he has to date.

It's unlikely he'll be interviewed by the Herald-Standard at this late date, but he may be. Even so, it's unlikely he'll face any question about his position currently on KOZ and his support of housing developments in KOZs.

It's up to you to hold them all accountable. Not just the ones you don't like.

(Net the Truth Online)

DESPERATELY SEEKING SLOGANS.

If the quality of potential bumper sticker slogans is any indication, Democrats could be in trouble during the 2008 campaign.

The online information service NewsMax.com reported last week that noted Democrat political consultant James Carville recently sent out a mass e-mail on behalf of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

The e-mail solicited suggestions for a bumper sticker slogan the party can use throughout next year's campaigns. The slogan will be featured on the DSCC's Web site, on campaign literature and "on the bumpers of jalopies from coast to coast."

The e-mail to presumed Democrat supporters states: "We need a turn of phrase that jumps out and tells you right off the bat what this election is all about."

Carville then offered a few potential slogans that went a long way in explaining why he is desperate for alternatives:

• W Is Out Send the Right Wing With Him

• No Republican Left Behind In D.C.

• What Have Republicans Done for You Lately

• 2006 Was Just the Beginning More Dems in '08

Color us unimpressed.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/whispers/s_524203.html

Radio Talk Show Host in the Politcal Mix for Top County Office

The posting has been copied to Wakeup

http://dirtline.tripod.com/wakeup/


WMBS 590 radio host of Let's Talk, Bob Foltz has had to leave his position at the radio in order to seek office for county commissioner as a write-in candidate in the November 6 General Election.

It's not surprising that Foltz had to step back from the position within a mere few days of the rumor of his write-in candidacy surfacing during calls to his program on Monday and Tuesday.

Wouldn't it be absolutely head-spinning if Foltz, a registered Democrat, with a widespread local following, won the third spot with the other two Democrats, knocking out two Republican candidates, and the one Independent candidate?

Voters in the General Election race for commissioner have the option to select two candidates among the 6 now running for the 3-member board of county commissoners.

Such would be head-spinning, but not surprising in the known Democrat stronghold.

A week or so before the announcement, when the focus was on the Republican Party's scrambling to replace incumbent county commissioner Joe Hardy when he bowed out of the General Election, a caller to Foltz's radio program said Fayette is overwhelmingly Democrat. Foltz agreed, with the Republican voter-registration outnumbered by a three to one ratio, it isn't surprising.

The caller said if 3 Democrats were running it would be a slam dunk for the Democrats.

Guess what, there are actually now basically four Democrats running.

Independent candidate, Marilyn Cellurale, while not seeking a nomination in the Democrat Primary, changed her voter-registration from Democrat to independent after the Primary.

The two Democrat Primary winners were Vincent Vicites and Vincent Zapotosky.

Republicans in the county are not only outnumbered by actual voter registration, the party naturally remains composed of many former Democrats. In fact, some candidates for public office have regularly switched from Democrat to Republican and back to Democrat. Oftentimes it seems like political musical chairs.

The 2003/04 county commissioner elections saw two Republicans taking the majority for the first time in decades. That may have been an anomaly then, and it is yet to be seen whether Charmaine Sampson and Angela Zimmerlink, the two female Republicans, can pull enough Democrats behind the pair to sweep back into the majority.
But the entry of Foltz into the mix in the countywide Democratic stronghold may change things toward the Democrats.

Foltz has voter registration in his favor. As does Cellurale.

The Democrat Primary winners may be at odds with each other, but the Democrat Party base isn't stupid. They want a return to a Democrat majority in the county. With Foltz a registered Democrat, with high name recognition, it would not be surprising if many Democrats cast a vote for Foltz rather than either of the two Republicans or Independent, or one or the other vying Democrat Primary winners.

Foltz has more to his benefit to pull out a "longshot" to win one of the three county commission spots.

With a couple of long-time political savvies, he's recently formed a local non-partisan political organization called We the People of Fayette County. (Course, how can the group now be considered non-partisan with a write-in (Democrat) candidate as one of its founders?)

The group already promoted a meet the candidates night, any and all candidates are invited to attend to introduce themselves at the local Polish Club for late October. (Checking date)

Now that Foltz is an announced "write-in" candidate, he'll have an opportunity to be among the candidates who attend the meeting and introduce themselves for a 5-minute period.

Should the other commission candidates also show, the meeting should be one of the most well-attended of all the local candidate forums coming up.

Come November, it will be interesting to see how Democrats will swing the county, all Democrat, or a split...

With a 3 Democrat 1 Independent (Democrat) to 2 Republican advantage, dare anyone place bets?

(Net the Truth Online)

the following does not mean an endorsement. Merely internet finds.
Cellurale for Commissioner

Charmaine Sampson

Vincent A. Vicites

Vincent Zapotosky Chamber membership info
http://www.faycham.org/member/Alphlisting/membersWXYZ.htm

Angela Zimmerlink

Foltz running as write-in in upcoming election
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
10/18/2007
Updated 10/17/2007 09:00:07 PM EDT
Local AM radio talk show host Bob Foltz announced Wednesday that he is running a write-in campaign for the position of Fayette County commissioner for the upcoming municipal election.

With the announcement, Foltz will have less than three weeks to campaign before the Nov. 6 election, and because he is a candidate, he will no longer host a daily radio show and get free publicity.
Foltz, a registered Democrat, confirmed Wednesday that he seeking the job and was informed by his station manager that as a candidate, he cannot be on the radio. Up until Wednesday, Foltz hosted a daily radio show, "Let's Talk," on WMBS 590 AM of Uniontown.
The names of five candidates, including two Democrats, two Republicans and one Independent will be on the Nov. 6 ballot. Voters wishing to cast a ballot for Foltz will have to use the dials on the electronic voting machine to spell out "Bob Foltz."
The Woodlawn Avenue, Uniontown man said he isn't seeking the position because he is against any of the five candidates already running. "I am pushing to do the best for Fayette County that I can do," Foltz said...
http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18928956&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=468520&rfi=6

Now it's 6
5 to run for Fayette county commissioner seats
By Liz Zemba
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Friday, August 3, 2007

A Fayette County businesswoman has entered the race for county commissioner as an Independent candidate.
Marilyn Cellurale, of Lemont Furnace, filed nominating papers with the county election bureau on Wednesday, the last day to file. She listed her party as "Cellurale County Commissioner."
Cellurale, owner of the family-run Cellurale Garden Center on Route 119 South in Dunbar Township, could not be reached yesterday for comment.
She becomes the fifth candidate seeking three seats on the board. The others who are running are incumbent Republicans Angela Zimmerlink and Joe Hardy, and Democrat Vince Vicites.
The only other challenger to the three incumbents is another Democratic candidate, Vincent Zapotosky...
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_520486.html
Fayette Election results unofficial
Election Day edition
May 15, 2007
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
With 91 percent of the vote counted, unofficial results show Mr. Hardy with 2,971 votes, behind fellow Republican Angela Zimmlerlink, with 3,093 votes. On the Democratic ticket, Vincent Zapotosky has garnered 8,558 votes, followed by Vincent A. Vicites, with 7,621 votes.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07135/786224-366.stm

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

Touch screen voting machines technological limitations

Electronic ballots change order of candidates' names
Thursday, October 11, 2007
By David Guo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
As is customary, candidates for races in Allegheny County soon will be sent a sample of what the Nov. 6 ballot will look like. A warning: Don't toss it out with the junk mail.

Because of technological limitations in the new electronic voting machines, some candidates may be surprised by their ballot position.

The quirk in ballot position is particularly apparent in this year's school board race in North Allegheny, a predominantly Republican area where a newcomer who won only the Democratic nomination will be listed above four GOP incumbents who won both parties' nominations.

Mark Wolosik, Allegheny County elections division manager, acknowledged the electronic ballots may cause more inquiries than usual. This is the first time touch-screen ballots have been used in a general election involving candidates nominated by both parties for school board, magisterial district judge and Common Pleas Court seats.

Instead of being listed across the ballot, as they were with the old lever voting machines, candidates' names are listed up and down. Also, their names appear only once on the electronic ballots, rather than once for each party that nominated them.

Mr. Wolosik explained why the county decided that candidates for each race should be listed in a single-column laundry list, rather than the familiar grid in which candidates from the same party were listed side by side, spread across the ballot.

"The system that we bought doesn't have the capacity to prevent a voter from voting for a candidate twice if they're listed twice," he explained. With the old system, a locked lever would prevent someone from voting twice for the same candidate.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07284/824362-181.stm