Your right to know: Plug this hole |

Your right to know: Plug this hole

If Pennsylvania’s open-records law is to deliver on its promise of greater transparency, government can’t be allowed to form private agencies (then hide behind them) to escape public scrutiny — and courts must uphold an Office of Open Records ruling to that effect.

The ruling says the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors is a “local agency” subject to open-records requests under the law because the Legislature created it, The Patriot-News of Harrisburg reports. The association is appealing the ruling in Cumberland County Court; the issue could end up before the state Supreme Court.

If the Office of Open Records ruling is upheld — as it must be, for transparency’s sake — the township supervisors association wouldn’t be the only such group whose communications with state government are affected.

John L. Gedid, a Widener Law School professor, cites the Pennsylvania County Commissioners Association, Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities, Pennsylvania Boroughs Association and Pennsylvania School Boards Association as examples of organizations that would be subject to the open-records law, too.

He agrees that such associations can’t be allowed to circumvent the law to hide their lobbying activities from the public.

Such groups weren’t subject to the state’s old, weaker open-records law. But they must be subject to the current, stronger one. Otherwise, too many officials at the local and county levels will exploit too big a loophole in the people’s right to know.

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.