Illegal
Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law was updated in 2008, some 50 years after it came on the books. And state lawmakers, in defiance of their wretched record and rotten reputation, did a pretty good job of improving it, though it still needs work and has caused some unforeseen consequences.
Among those is a significant uptick in demand for government documents that is placing a big burden on small municipal governments.
Driving the demand are unanticipated requests from businesses that are using the law as a marketing tool. For example, home improvement organizations are requesting copies of building permits and other documents identifying property owners who are adding on or doing renovations — both an effective and economical way to conduct targeted advertising.
Great thinking on behalf of smart entrepreneurs. Not so great for local governments and the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for government workers to satisfy all the requests, which by law they must do.
So here’s a little ingenuity from officials in Northampton Township, Pennsylvania. Their idea for meeting demand is to reduce demand. At least that would be the effect of nixing emailed Right-to-Know requests, which is how most requests arrive. Instead, Northampton would require those seeking documents to file a petition in person or by regular mail.
Their thinking is that this would enable the township to recover the cost of satisfying document requests, because the law allows an agency to impose a per-page charge — something it cannot do by emailing documents.
Perhaps ingenious but not legal and also dismissive of residents’ right to know. That’s what the lawyer for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association said. According to attorney Melissa Melewsky, someone requesting a document whose emailed filing is denied could appeal the decision to the state’s Office of Open Records, which likely would rule that the township ordinance does not comply with state law.
Creating some confusion and apparently driving Northampton’s belief that it is on firm legal ground is a provision in the law that says a government agency “may promulgate regulations and policies necessary to implement this act.”
However, the director of the state Open Records Office says that exception pertains to agencies in rural areas of the state that do not have websites or email access. That does not seem to be the case in Northampton, he said.
He’s right about that. And while we’re not lawyers or experts on the law, our common-sense suggestion for Northampton officials is to shelve their thoughtless and apparently illegal proposal.
“Good intentions” might have inspired the plan, as Northampton Supervisor Larry Weinstein explained. But while concern about the cost of satisfying records requests is understandable, there should be equal concern about the inadvertent cost of violating the rights of residents with an earnest need to obtain documents otherwise sealed from view.
– Bucks County Courier Times