PITTSBURGH -- Penn State football coach Joe Paterno's salary should be made public because people have the right to know how money is spent by the state retirement system, attorneys for a newspaper argued Wednesday.
The Commonwealth Court heard arguments on whether the State Employees' Retirement System board was right to rule last year that Paterno's salary and those of three other top Penn State University officials are public record.
An attorney for Penn State told the court that the case is really about The Patriot-News of Harrisburg's tabloid-like curiosity about how much Paterno makes.
"That information doesn't shed much light on the operations of (the retirement system)," John Snyder, Penn State's attorney, told the five judges assembled to hear the case in Pittsburgh. "If you want to know how SERS is doing, read its comprehensive annual report."
But attorneys for the newspaper and the retirement system say the law is on their side.
"We indeed are here this morning, if you agree with Penn State, to carve out a special exception for Penn State University employees," said Craig Staudenmaier, the newspaper's attorney.
The retirement board ruled last May that the information was public record under the state's Right-To-Know Act. The board in November rejected appeals by Paterno; Richard Althouse, the university's budget officer; Rodney A. Erickson, executive vice president and provost; and treasurer Gary C. Schultz. But the retirement system delayed releasing the information pending Penn State's Commonwealth Court appeal.
Penn State President Graham Spanier, in an interview with The Associated Press, expressed doubt that the issue is "a matter of accountability of taxpayer dollars. ... It's more of a curiosity and a feeling of a right to know. And the curiosity is fueled primarily by the media.
"I understand it. And if at some point we need to reveal people's salaries, we will. It would just make my job harder."
Snyder said getting the salary information from the state retirement board is merely a backdoor attempt to get information that newspapers aren't entitled to get from the university.
Penn State, a state-related university, is privately operated but receives more than $300 million each year in state funding. The Commonwealth Court in 1990 ruled the university isn't a "state agency" as defined under the Right-to-Know Act, so Snyder argued that it can legally keep the salary information secret.
Staudenmaier, the newspaper's attorney, didn't argue that. But he said it's perfectly OK for the retirement system to release the same information because it is a "state agency," according to the courts.
Staudenmaier argued what Penn State really wants is special treatment for its employees, who are otherwise treated the same by the retirement agency as other state employees -- including the judges who heard the arguments.
The judges asked several tough questions of both sides.
"You're saying your clients have more of a privacy interest than any other state employees only because you can't go to Penn State and get" the same information⢠Judge Dan Pellegrini asked Snyder.
But Judge Rochelle S. Friedman challenged the newspaper's need for the information.
"How do we learn about the workings of SERS by getting the private (salary) information of these individuals?" Friedman asked.
