Democracy Rising Pennsylvania

In this Edition

  • Reality Check
  • Happy New Year! $100,000 Challenge Extended
  • "Where do you think you are, Pennsylvania?" No, Texas.
  • Gaping Holes in SB 1

Reality Check
914 - Days since the Pay Raise of 2005.
See the ticker .
1 - Law enacted to improve government integrity. See the cartoon .
0 - "Best-in-America" laws enacted. See the campaign .
See the full January edition of "Reality Check" on the web.

Happy New Year! $100,000 Challenge Extended
DR contributors closed 2007 by raising more than $33,000 toward matching the $100,000 pledged for our capital campaign, whose deadline has been extended to January 31. Check our home page to check our progress and watch the heat rise on the culture of corruption in Harrisburg.

"Where do you think you are, Pennsylvania?" No, Texas.
Here's some plain talk about open records from the Lone Star State:

"The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."
-- Section 552.001 of the Government Code of Texas.

Meanwhile in PA, Gaping Holes In SB 1
Citizens can thank the state Senate for refusing to rush to judgment on the House-passed version of open records legislation, which will be the foremost order of business when both the House and Senate return on January 14. While the House made si gnificant improvements to the original Senate Bill 1 , there remain a few gaping loopholes that make the law less open and more secret than it should be. Now is a good time for citizens to ask their Senators to close those loopholes.

Enforcement. There are two concerns: 1) the penalties for violating the law, and 2) the costs when citizens must go to court to obtain public records.

The best open records laws create both civil and criminal penalties for agencies and officials who intentionally violate the law. They also have tougher penalties for repeat offenders. But SB 1 has only a civil penalty of $1,000 no matter how often or unreasonably an agency or official misbehaves.

When citizens must go to court, the expenses can be high. The best and most citizen-friendly law would require courts to award attorney fees and court costs, either when agencies stonewall citizens or when citizens make frivolous requests. Yet SB 1 makes such awards optional, even when an agency repeatedly vio lates the law willfully, wantonly or unreasonably.

Questions:

  • Why shouldn't agencies and officials who repeatedly violate the law be subject to increasingly harsh penalties in the same way ordinary citizens are when they are repeat offenders?
  • Why shouldn't courts be required to award attorney fees and costs to citizens when agencies and officials willfully, wantonly and unreasonably refuse to release public documents? Or to public agencies when citizens make frivolous requests?

Lobbyist and constituent communications. The best laws recognize that citizens have the right to know who is trying to influence their lawmakers and with what information and inducements. Citizens deserve to know the nature of the debate and how to argue for their own interests with those who represent them.

SB 1 keeps the records secret - not just names but entire records - of anyone who "requests assistance or constituent s ervices from a member of the General Assembly." That's not good enough.

Privileges. The law has long recognized a number of relationships where communication is privileged. These include priest-penitent, doctor-patient and husband-wife. SB 1 keeps these privileges and adds a new category: "other privilege recognized by a court interpreting the laws of this Commonwealth."

Call us skeptics, but we can imagine that the General Assembly already has drafted a lawsuit asking the courts to recognize "lawmaker-constituent" communication as a privilege. Given the already too-cozy relationship between the legislature and the courts, SB 1 should prevent such a possibility by listing the privileged relationships and prohibiting all others.

Pay to Play. This new section, Section 905, allows agencies to refuse to provide documents if the requester hasn't paid the fee for a previous request. News organizations point out that this gives agencie s and officials an incentive and an opportunity to stonewall a single controversial request and thereby deny indefinitely any number of other non-controversial requests.

This is just another reason why public information should be provided to the public and media free of charge. CLICK HERE for other reasons (in bold) in a statement from last September.

________________________________________________________________________