ShareThis Page
Sunshine over ‘shade’: Nix these bills |

Sunshine over ‘shade’: Nix these bills

| Thursday, October 27, 2016 8:55 p.m

Government transparency needs more work in Harrisburg, specifically with regard to improving access to public information. But rather than open any windows wider, three pending state bills would draw the shades.

HB 297, authored by state Rep. Eli Evankovich, R-Murrysville, would restrict the release of names, causes and manners of death of individuals — public information that’s already provided by coroners. The bill’s intent is to ensure that families of the deceased are duly notified before the information is released. But that’s already addressed under the state’s Right to Know Law and the Coroner’s Act. And the release of that information is upheld in a 2012 Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion.

The vagaries contained in this legislation would conflict with existing law. And a proposed amendment reportedly would prohibit coroners from releasing medical test results.

Two other bills, HB 1538 and SB 976, would shield the identities of police officers who injure or kill a person in “the use of force” (unless criminal charges are filed against police) and block public access to officers’ bodycam footage, respectively. Sidelining the public, especially at a time when police are under increased scrutiny, would only further any public mistrust when bridges, not roadblocks, are needed.

Transparency, we remind, is the heart of the law, not an afterthought. Impinging on that, in matters that directly concern the public, is an egregious step backward.

Categories: Editorials
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.