State’s open records director sitting in limbo |

State’s open records director sitting in limbo

Terry Mutchler, former director of the state's Office of Open Records

The woman hired six years ago to oversee sweeping changes to Pennsylvania’s open records law is waiting to see if she still has a job.

More than three months since her six-year term expired as executive director of the Office of Open Records, Terry Mutchler doesn’t know whether Gov. Tom Corbett will reappoint her to a second term.

Mutchler, a former Associated Press journalist, took the $142,358-a-year post after lawmakers voted in 2008 to grant unprecedented access to the inner workings of public agencies.

“Every day you come in (and), for me and my family, we wonder if that’s my last paycheck,” Mutchler said. “I’m willing to take that, but it’s very, very stressful on the staff.”

Corbett spokesman Jay Pagni said the governor will decide “at the appropriate time.”

Mutchler said that as a “liberal Democrat, out-lesbian,” she might be out of Corbett’s comfort zone — but said, on balance, her deputy, Nathan Byerly, is a conservative, straight man who voted for Corbett.

State officials from both parties have sent Corbett at least five letters on her behalf.

Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, R-Jefferson County, and Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware County, cited Mutchler’s “unimpeachable integrity, unwavering fairness, and a strong work ethic” in their July 22 letter.

“I think it’s sort of sad she hasn’t been reappointed by the governor at this point. I don’t understand the delay,” said Sen. Matt Smith, D-Mt. Lebanon, who co-signed a letter to Corbett with Sen. Lloyd Smucker, R-Lancaster, about six weeks ago.

For Mutchler, more is at stake than a paycheck.

She has an emotional attachment to the office she built from the ground up, to enforce open records revisions when the law took effect in 2009.

She recalls starting the job in a cubicle with just a copy of the law, and gradually hiring experts in various fields of law.

Since then, her office has handled more than 11,000 appeals of denied Right-to-Know requests, answered more than 50,000 emails and phone calls, watched 500 cases go to court, and conducted about 1,400 training sessions for public officials, journalists and citizens.

Her work is not done, she said.

“I believe it will take a full 10 years before we have a body of case law that really shapes this law,” Mutchler said. The office director “has to be someone who is pro-open government, and not pro-agency or pro-requestor.”

The law radically changed public access to records by presuming that all records are public unless a government entity can prove they fall under one of the law’s exceptions. Before, the person making a request had to prove why a document should be public.

Observers say the law vastly improved government openness but more changes are needed.

Erik Arneson, spokesman for Pileggi, the architect of the 2008 law, called it “an absolute, unqualified success.”

“Many thousands of records were released over the last six years, which would have never seen the light of day under the old law,” Arneson said. “There has certainly been a learning curve both on the part of agencies and requestors, but overall it has been more of a success than we had hoped for.”

Open government advocates are measured in their praise.

“The Office of Open Records has been a great resource,” said Melissa Melewsky of the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association. “While we don’t agree with everything they decide, they keep a lot of people out of court and that’s a good thing.”

Previously, requestors had to sue to appeal a denial of a records request, Melewsky said.

Still, advocates believe the wording in exceptions is too broad for records that deal with investigations and “internal, predecisional deliberations.”

Kim de Bourbon, executive director of the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition, said school districts and government agencies can use the predecisional exemption to withhold virtually any record established before a vote.

“(The law) was designed to give the public access to the government and be part of the decision-making process,” de Bourbon said.

Nationally, Pennsylvania has gained ground over other states since 2008, usually ranking in the middle of the pack in terms of openness.

But it’s a far cry from some states, such as Florida, where openness dates to common law in the 1800s.

In 1992, Florida voters made access to government records and meetings a right guaranteed in the state’s constitution, said Barbara Petersen of the Tallahassee-based First Amendment Foundation.

“I think journalists who know their way around (open records laws) … would much prefer to have Florida’s law than anybody else’s,” she said.

Kari Andren is a Trib Total Media staff writer. Reach her at 724-850-2856 or [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.