ShareThis Page
The public’s right to know: Law with no bite |

The public’s right to know: Law with no bite

| Sunday, April 6, 2003 12:00 a.m

A long-fought court battle over a secretive sexual-harassment settlement involving Westmoreland County’s Housing Authority and its former executive director has been quite revealing. It shows, among other things, the narrow scope of Pennsylvania’s Right-To-Know law, which has few teeth and precious little bite.

This case clearly is a matter of public concern: A monetary settlement was paid, hushing allegations of improprieties that could violate federal law and could cost public money. Two courts have upheld the Tribune-Review’s position that the settlement is a public record; a ruling from the state’s Supreme Court is pending. The housing authority and its insurance company argue that the settlement is not a public record.

In Pennsylvania, any government record is presumed to be secret unless it falls under the Right-to-Know law’s tiny umbrella. It’s no wonder open-record advocates consider Pennsylvania’s law to be one of the weakest in the nation.

By way of comparison, here’s a look at the preamble to West Virginia’s Freedom of Information law — and how the roles of “the people” and “government” are delineated:

“Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government, which holds to the principle that a government is the servant of the people, not the master of them, it is hereby declared to be the public policy of the state of West Virginia that all persons are, unless otherwise expressly provided by law, entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them as public officials and employees.” That is precisely as it should be.

Pennsylvanians don’t have to settle for a toothless watchdog. They can press their state lawmakers to enact meaningful reform of the state’s Right-To-Know law.

Categories: News
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.