Recently in Pennsylvania Right to Know Category

Can you assess first-responder performance without knowing where units came from or where they went? You'll be able to if a county judge rules in the Daily Record/Sunday News' favor on an open-records appeal; you won't be able to if he rules in York County's favor.

York County Common Pleas Court Judge Richard Renn will issue a written decision on the matter. He heard arguments from the YDR's lawyer and the county's lawyer on Wednesday.

The state's open records office ruled that 911 time-response logs must include addresses or geographical identifiers; the county appealed to Common Pleas Court.

 The county's key arguments:

•  The right-to-know law doesn't define time-response log, so the definition should come from the state chapter of the National Emergency Number Association, which defines a time-response log as, basically, when a call came in, when a unit went out, when it arrived and when it cleared the scene.
• The release of addresses or geographical identifiers would amount to an invasion of privacy of people who call 911 for emergencies.

Key arguments from Wednesday's hearing, according to York attorney Niles Benn, who represented the newspaper:

• The county did not cite supporting legal authority in its denial of reporter Ted Czech's request, as required by the right-to-know law;
• A follow-up letter from the county cited the exception to the law in which 911 time-response logs are mentioned. But the exception specifically allows public access to time-response logs.
  
• The county did not argue, in its denial letters or to the Office of Open Records, that addresses are protected by federal or state constitutional right to privacy;
• The right-to-know act addresses safety concerns regarding the release of addresses, but did not attach any qualification when it made time-response logs public.
• The new right-to-know law intended to expand public access, not restrict it; excluding addresses from time-response logs would withhold from the public information it could get under the old RTK law.
• If the county is not required to release addresses, it should be required to release cross-streets.

We'll let you know when Judge Renn rules. Meantime, anyone want to weigh in on either side of this case?

Quick update: A York County judge heard arguments today about whether the county must include addresses, or some kind of geographic locator, with its time-response logs. The judge has not produced a decision yet.

Background for this issue is here. It's an important case because time-response logs were specifically made public in the state's new right-to-know law, but York County is challenging the state Office of Open Records' decision about what a time-response log is.

I will post more about the arguments later.

When I read this Twitter post from the Virginia Coalition for Open Government's annual conference, I immediately thought of Pennsylvania local and state government (though in some cases it would be charitable to say they believe in open government). It might be more accurate to say many government officials in Pennsylvania understand that there is a right-to-know law, but that doesn't necessarily mean they have to release information.

 Anyway, based on my own experiences and those of others I know, this post really resonated. Do you agree this applies to Pennsylvania? If so, what can be done about it? Do you disagree? If so, why?

Quick update: The York Daily Record/Sunday News' effort to get 911 time-response logs from York County is headed to court Oct. 21.

Background: The state's new right-to-know law made time-response logs public, so that people could assess the performance of their first-responders. But the law didn't define what a time-response log is.

When the YDR/SN asked for logs from the county, we got a list of times. When we asked for geographical identifiers such as block addresses, the county said no. We appealed to the state's open records office, which agreed with us and told the county to add addresses or some kind of geographic locators to the logs. The county appealed to Common Pleas court.

Later this month, oral arguments will be heard. More here.

A Pew Research Center survey on attitudes toward the news media shows, the center says, that "most Americans continue to support the so-called 'watchdog role' for the press. In fact, the percentage of Americans saying that press criticism of political leaders keeps them "from doing things that should not be done" is nearly as high now -- at 62% -- as it was in Pew Research's first poll in 1985 (67%)..." At that time, the center notes, overall views of media were far less negative than they are now.

We hope you'd be among that 62 percent. This blog was created as part of the York Daily Record/Sunday News' watchdog efforts, as was our Full Disclosure open-records page. We also created a tips form you can use to let us know about stories you think we're missing, or ones we should go after.

Bring your open-records questions, because the state's open records office will answer them in training sessions next week and the week after. Specifics:

Sept. 21, two sessions, 10 a.m.-noon and 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., at the State Museum of Pennsylvania, 300 North Street, Harrisburg
 
Sept. 29, two sessions, 10 a.m.-noon and 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m., at the State Museum of Pennsylvania, 300 North Street, Harrisburg

"Understanding how the Sunshine Law works is a powerful tool to exercise your rights as a citizen or a public official in the Commonwealth," said Terry Mutchler, executive director of the open records office. "Those who attend these trainings will be able to have a hands-on, practical knowledge of these important open-government laws."

The sessions are free but seating is limited so registration is required. Go here for a registration form.

Original documents from state and federal governments, courts, schools and other agencies have a new home on the York Daily Record/Sunday News' Web site. Instead of residing on the Full Disclosure open records page, they now have their own page.

You can get to them one of two ways:

The 'Reading Room' link on the Full Disclosure page

or

go directly to the 'Reading Room' page.

The documents are now organized by topic, so they're easier for you to look through and find what you want. If you have suggestions on how to make the page even easier to navigate, let me know. I plan to add dates to each entry soon.

 If you have documents you'd like to share online, let me know and we can get them on 'Reading Room' -- and we'll give you credit for digging them out. If you have ideas for documents you think we should get from an agency and put online, let me know. And feel free to link to the page for quick access. 

In my story yesterday about a settlement payment to a former director of the York County School of Technology, I had to use an estimate for his payout.

The settlement, which came Wednesday via a Right-to-Know request, showed up on my desk around 3:30 p.m. The contract didn't spell out his salary, and my last record was from 2005-2006.

Today, in response to another Right-to-Know request, I got the updated salary from the state's pension board for educators, the Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System.

Former director James A. Kraft made $126,438.73 as of June 30. Under his settlement agreement he is due his weekly salary until March 31. That's $87,534. He's also getting health care. In return, he's agreed not to sue the district.

Court rulings indicate that government agencies "may not contract away their statutory responsibility to produce public records," according to Melissa Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

I asked Melissa about Carroll Township's denial of a request for preliminary development plans, which it says are "predecisional" and are to be kept confidential as part of the the settlement of an ongoing conflict with the developer about its plans.

Here's the back and forth, which hopefully helps shed light on the issue:

 Record Tracker: Is it legal for a municipality to enter into a legal agreement that
makes public records private? Does the situation between Carroll Township and the developer reveal a loophole in open records law -- that if two parties want to keep records private, they can go to court and draw up a settlement that stipulates
that otherwise public records will be kept private?

Melissa Melewsky: "There is strong appellate court precedent that unequivocally holds settlement agreements between private parties and government agencies are public records despite any confidentiality provision contained in the agreement. It is clear from these opinions that government agencies may not contract away their statutory responsibility to produce public records. 
 
 "There is no loophole in the RTKL that allows agencies to contractually negate their obligations to produce public records. Records that are confidential pursuant to a court order can be kept private but the court order itself must be legally appropriate.

Carroll Township appears to say that it doesn't have some documents requested by a residents' group, but will allow the group to look at stormwater management plans related to a proposed development. (The letter could be read to say the township didn't have the documents as of the date specified.)

 The stormwater management plans, the township says, are part of an ongoing settlement with the developer, the terms of which included that plans be kept from the public, so the records "are therefore not otherwise of public record."

Carroll Citizens for Sensible Growth has posted the letter on its Web site.

The township's letter was in response to information requested by the state's open records office, which is considering CCSG's appeal that plans related to the development be made public.