Pennsylvania has some of the most restrictive open records laws in America, needlessly slowing or stopping the public from accessing documents and information that, by right, belong to them. The purpose of public records rules is to enhance accountability and trust, but here they foster suspicion between the government and its citizens.
It’s beyond time to amend these laws to ensure accountability, transparency and fairness — and not just for nosy journalists. Fewer than 10% of public records requests come from reporters: Businesses, legal professionals and everyday citizens should all have efficient access to public records.
Most states have their own specific public records regulations built from the federal FOIA framework. In Pennsylvania, these regulations are known as Right-to-Know laws, or RTK. Unfortunately, their regulatory structure creates two major faults in the system that hamper the timely turnover of public records and limit the accessibility of law enforcement findings.
On the surface, Pennsylvania’s law appears favorable to the public, mandating that agencies respond to all records requests within five business days. Extensions may only be granted under special circumstances, like when records are physically located elsewhere or require outside legal review. But for many agencies, this extension window has instead become the default.
“I’ve seen 30-day extensions taken on something as simple as meeting minutes,” said Melissa Melewsky, the media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. “Many agencies routinely take the maximum amount of time allowable by law.”
With no legal penalties for such delays, the de facto waiting period for Pennsylvania public records often extends a month. Denied requests can only be appealed through the Office of Open Records, the state agency which ultimately issues the final determination.
Pennsylvania’s RTK laws are also fragmented. Police body camera footage, and its dissemination, is controlled by a separate law called Act 22. That law has its own set of arbitrary guidelines, asking agencies to weigh “the public interest in disclosure” versus the “interests of the Commonwealth” and “the law enforcement agency.” These subjective considerations are no doubt different for an officer, a journalist or a victim — yet police departments get the ultimate say.
Pennsylvania needs to rethink penalties for noncompliant public agencies and to prioritize the speedy delivery of public documents. It’s also crucial to ensure that body-worn cameras fulfill their promised role as tools of transparency.
Pennsylvania was founded as an outlier in liberty. Now it’s an outlier in secrecy.
— Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via AP
