Open records: Hold the phone? |

Open records: Hold the phone?

The digital age has produced a growing conundrum nationwide, Pennsylvania included, involving the copying of public records. Government transparency, however, demands there be no conundrum at all.

Many government agencies charge the public to make copies. As long as those charges are limited to covering costs, that’s fine. But we live in the age of picture-taking cellphones and hand-held scanners. Which has prompted some government offices to either bar their use — forcing the public to pay for paper copies — or charge the same fee.

The bureaucratic rationale is that government offices still have to pay for those copier machines, ostensibly purchased for citizens to copy public records. As if a modern government office ever existed without a copier machine.

Especially curious is the attitude of some government officials, such as Jim Uziel, deputy recorder in the Allegheny County Real Estate Office: “They’re public documents,” he concedes. But “they’re basically the property of this office. … They’re kind of like our product.”

Actually, government is the custodian of public documents, not their owner. And if such documents are government’s “product,” doesn’t it behoove government to serve its customers — taxpayers already tapped to pay for these government operations — in the most efficacious manner?

Of course it does. But, then again, we’re talking about government.

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.