Editorial: Open records can’t be held hostage |

Editorial: Open records can’t be held hostage


Irwin residents need a hostage negotiator.

The Westmoreland County borough is currently locked in a stand-off between the council and the fire department, and it seems like a no-win situation.

It all started when the fire department started transporting patients in nonemergency situations.

The borough said the department was using municipal money to fill the ambulance gas tank, and they owed $2,200 to pay it back.

If that’s what happened, the borough may well be right. The fire department should probably pay back what they owe.

But the department then asked for the municipality’s budgets from previous years. The borough said give us the $2,200, you get the budgets.

That’s not how this works.

The fire department didn’t ask for a council member’s personal financial records. They asked for something that is required to be open.

Every year, when the borough approves its budget, it has to do it tentatively. It has to make a spending plan for the coming year, and then it has to put it on display for everyone to look at, evaluate and question. Then they have to openly give final approval.

Every dollar of that budget is required, by law, to be accounted for publicly again when it is spent.

If a resident, an individual, an organization or an agency has a question, the records for those expenditures or the plans are supposed to be available for review.

There is a Right-to-Know process to get documentation a municipality or other government group has not openly provided, but that is a ridiculous hurdle for a document that has already been freely made public.

The Right-to-Know Law begins with the idea that all records are open. It would be hard to argue that something like a budget isn’t when state law has already separately required the information to be openly available.

The government unit is also not allowed to be arbitrary or punitive in its release of records. It can’t demand payment beyond the cost of providing the copies or postage, or in the case of more complicated records, the time for an employee to compile the information.

And they can only ask for payment up front if those costs are expected to top $100.

It seems unlikely that copies of a few years of previously compiled budget paperwork would be that complicated to produce, or that costly to provide. It also seems that $2,200 in unrelated funding would be contrary to the Right-to-Know Law, rather like demanding a resident pay his taxes before giving him paperwork to register to vote.

In a situation where maybe both sides aren’t entirely right, this money vs. records knife fight is just not helping anyone.

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.