Above the Law

Pam Biondi: Government Must Be Accountable to the People

Throughout my nearly two decades in public service, I have been committed to transparency and open government. I fully believe that in order for government to run properly, it needs to be held accountable by the people. In fact, the Florida Constitution, which sets forth our rights as citizens of this great state, provides that the public has the right to know how government officials spend taxpayer dollars and make the decisions affecting their lives.

Sunshine Week is an excellent way not only to inform the public on the importance of open government, but also to let them know about their rights under Florida’s Government-in-the-Sunshine law.

The benefits of open government are frequently acknowledged -- transparency promotes accountability, aids the search for truth, and fosters consistency and fairness in governmental decision making. Fortunately, though, Florida’s laws do not require that open government be justified by reference to these desirable consequences. We live in a state that values open government for its own sake, and for that we should all be thankful.

According to the Florida Supreme Court, a public record includes all materials made or received by an agency in connection with official business which are used to perpetuate, communicate or formalize knowledge. Florida leads the nation in providing public access to government meetings and records, and transparency and open government have always been a priority in my office as we assist with public records requests every day.

Making a public records request is easy, and it can be done over the phone, through email, letter, or in-person. If a governmental agency does not comply with the Government-in-the-Sunshine law, the local state attorney has the authority to prosecute.

The people of Florida have elected me to protect their rights, and I will continue to protect those rights. The Attorney General’s Office houses Open Government, and we view transparency and open government as a top priority.

Pam Biondi is the Florida Attorney General

'A New Era of Transparency'

From The Archives: Why revealing Joe Paterno's salary is important

Before the current sex abuse scandal that brought down legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, the last time I wrote about JoePa was in December 2007 when there was a controversy about keeping his salary secret. The Associated Press reported on Monday that Paterno is eligible for a $554,000 annual pension based on his most recent salary as PSU's head football coach.

Here's a look back at the 2007 column:

Why revealing Joe Paterno's salary is important

By Tony Phyrillas

Pennsylvania ranks 49 out of 50 states for having the worst open-records law in the country. The Paterno salary story, which made the front page of every newspaper in the state, should be a wake-up call to Pennsylvania residents.

The world now knows how much Joe Paterno makes as head football coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions.

My life hasn't changed one bit since I found out that Paterno earns $512,664 a year. I graduated from Penn State but it never occurred to me to ask how much Paterno made when I attended school in State College or in the years since I left Happy Valley.

I never gave any thought to Paterno's salary until I learned that a newspaper had been trying for five years to get the information.

Paterno's salary was one of the best-kept secrets in Pennsylvania, a state where keeping the public in the dark is one of the primary missions of government. Pennsylvania ranks 49 out of 50 states for having the worst open-records law in the country.

The State Employees' Retirement System released Paterno's salary a week after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that his salary and those of other top Penn State officials are public information.

How much the 80-year-old coach makes isn't as important as the fact that so many government and university officials worked so hard for so long to keep the information out of public sight.

The revelation that Paterno makes $512,000 was almost anti-climatic. Most people were under the impression that Paterno was making more than $1 million a year based on his longevity at Penn State and the success he has brought to the school's football program.

"I'm paid well. I'm not overpaid," Paterno told reporters. "I got all the money I need."

What a refreshing statement from a public figure in a state where greed has become the norm. Pennsylvania legislators, already among the highest paid in the country, voted themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 54 percent during a middle-of-the-night session on July 7, 2005. Gov. Ed Rendell signed the pay grab into law. It took a backlash from Pennsylvania residents to get the Legislature to rescind the pay raise.

And let's not compare Paterno's salary to that of some other coaches who run big-time football programs. Alabama's Nick Saban is the highest paid coach at $4 million per year. Oklahoma's Bob Stoops makes over $3 million. Florida's Urban Meyer, Ohio State's Jim Tressel and South Carolina's Steve Spurrier make $2 million annually.

Paterno, the second winningest college football coach of all time, is underpaid compared to other coaches. Paterno is Penn State. His value to the school cannot be measured in dollars and cents. And let's not forget that Paterno and his wife have donated $4 million to Penn State over the years.

I don't think anyone can argue that Paterno isn't worth every dollar Penn State pays him. The salary revelation should put renewed focus on the current debate in the Pennsylvania Legislature over open records.

The reason the Harrisburg Patriot-News had to fight so hard in the courts to get the salary information is because Pennsylvania law presumes that all government and quasi-government agencies are entitled to keep secrets.

The public, through newspapers and other media outlets, have to persuade courts that the information should be public. This presumption is backwards. The burden should be on the government to show why information associated with how it spends the public's money or conducts the public's business should be kept from the public.

Political commentator Lowman Henry has an interesting take on the Paterno salary disclosure:

"Why then would Penn State's power brokers fight so hard to keep such information confidential? In a word: arrogance. It has become apparent they simply believe, despite the fact PSU receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, We The People have no right to know what they are doing with our money. Clearly the Paterno salary is not untoward, and the university is generally perceived as one of the finest in the nation. Why then the secrecy?"

The Paterno salary story, which made the front page of every newspaper in the state, should be a wake-up call to Pennsylvania residents. They need to be engaged in the current debate about revising the state's open-records laws. This is not about giving newspapers special access. This is about giving the people of Pennsylvania the right to know how their elected officials are conducting the people's business.

A vote on revisions to the open-records law could come any day now. Make sure your elected representatives know you're paying attention and will not tolerate any more secrecy.

What do coroners in Pennsylvania have to hide?

From a recent editorial in The Mercury about attempts to exempt certain coroner records from public scrutiny:

THORNS to the state Senate for considering eliminating public access to coroner records, a move that would set back progress toward open records in Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 961 would eliminate public access to virtually all coroner records. Instead of a full report on the cause of a suspicious death released in a timely fashion, it would require only the release of the name, cause and manner of death and even then it would become public only 30 days after the calendar year in which a death occurs. The coroner's office plays an important role for the public and the criminal justice system by providing an independent and timely investigation into deaths of questionable circumstances such as homicides, suicides, accidental and often sudden and unexplained deaths. There is no question that everyone involved in the process of someone's death, including the media, needs to be sensitive, but complete information about suspicious deaths is critical. This is a bill that should not move forward.

Newspaper: New law puts teeth into PA Sunshine Laws

From an editorial in The Mercury:

Senate Bill 101 increases the fines that may be imposed on elected officials who participate in a meeting with the intent of violating the open meeting requirements.

The fine, which was previously a flat rate of $100, was raised to as much as $1,000 for a first offense and $500 to $2,000 for a second offense. The mandate is set to take effect in 60 days.

The increased penalties for violating state sunshine laws were long overdue.

Pennsylvania has been known to be among the most antiquated states in the nation in its laws on open meetings and open records — a standing that was improved somewhat with the passage of open records reform several years ago.

Read the full editorial at the link below:

New law puts teeth into state sunshine laws - pottsmerc.com

Newspaper: PA Legislature should put teeth in Sunshine Act

Legislature should put teeth in the state Sunshine Act (12/22/10)

PA could use a similar law

We could use a similar law in Pennsylvania, home of pay-to-play.

U.S. Chamber: Florida's New 'Sunshine' Law will Shine Light on Contingency Fee; 'Pay-to-Play' Lawsuits

Newspaper: Pennsylvania deserves better Sunshine Act

A day doesn't go by when elected officials don't violate the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act by conducting the public's business behind closed doors.

An effort in the state Legislature to put some teeth behind the law -- such as raising the fine for violators from $100 to $1,000 -- is long overdue, argues the Reading Eagle.

Among the suggested improvements:

Any reform bill, the newspaper argues, should include:

A requirement that public bodies prepare an agenda prior to all public meetings and make it available 48 hours ahead of the meeting; and that such an agenda include matters scheduled for official action and describe any private session it plans to hold.

A requirement that public bodies keep verbatim records of all closed meetings, in the form of an audio or video recording, so that, if the private session is challenged in court, a judge could review the meeting to determine if it was closed legally.

Giving courts the power to require that a given meeting be open to the public and giving courts the power to void any action taken in violation of the Sunshine Act.

These requirements would force public bodies to justify executive sessions and give the public both more reason to believe in their legitimacy and give recourse if a member of the public believes a violation occurred.

Read the full editorial at the link below:

Pennsylvania public deserves a much better Sunshine Act

Sunshine Act Needs Some Teeth

Elected officials routinely break the law by conducting the public's business behind closed doors. A new bill would increase the maximum fine from $100 to $1000 for violators.

Support House Bill 1324 to put some teeth behind Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law. It's your money these people are spending. You have a right to know where it goes.

Read this editorial in the Reading Eagle:

Richmond supervisors circumvent the Sunshine Act (3/18/10)

Also check out this editorial in The Pottstown Mercury

Newspaper: Those who violate open-meeting law should pay a price

Elected officials routinely violate the state Sunshine Law because the penalty for breaking the law amounts to a slap on the wrist.

From an editorial in the Reading Eagle:

In fact, the Sunshine Act is intended to assure that elected and appointed officials throughout the commonwealth perform the public's business in full view of anyone who is interested in watching it, and the law is ignored almost as frequently as the 55-mph speed limit on the West Shore Bypass. But the odds of motorists being fined for exceeding the speed limit are infinitely greater than the chances that any elected or appointed public official will be cited for violating the Sunshine Act.

If the law had some real teeth, with hefty fines for violators, those who take an oath of office may actually follow the law and conduct the public's business in the open.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site:

Those who violate open-meeting law should pay a price (3/14/10)

'Sunny Award' winners announced

Four Pennsylvania government Web sites were named winners of the "Sunny Award" today, marking them as some of the best state and local government Websites for transparency by Sunshine Review, a pro transparency organization.

The Pennsylvania winners are Avon Grove School District, Brandywine Heights Area School District, Philadelphia County and the state Web site.

From a Sunshine Review press release:

Award winners are among only 39 Web sites in America earning an "A" transparency grade from more than 5,000 analyzed. Sunshine Review's "Transparency Checklist" analyzes Web sites for information about budgets, meetings, elected and administrative officials, permits and zoning, audits, contracts, lobbying, public records, and taxes. The "Checklist" measures what content is available on government websites against what should be provided.

"Sunny Award winners deserve recognition for making information available to citizens and for setting a transparency standard that all governments can, and should, meet," said Mike Barnhart, president of Sunshine Review. "Access to information empowers every citizen to hold government officials accountable for the conduct of the public's business and the spending of taxpayers' money. Official accountability is the corner stone of self government and liberty."

Sunshine Review is a non-profit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency. The Sunshine Review wiki collects and shares transparency information and uses a 10-point "Transparency Checklist" to evaluate the content of every state and more than 5,000 local government websites. Sunshine Review collaborates with individuals and organizations throughout America in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government.

Since its inception in 2008, Sunshine Review has analyzed the Web sites of all 50 states, more than 3,140 counties, 805 cities, and 1,560 school districts.

For more information, visit www.sunshinereview.org

So far, only 7 PA Congressmen support '72 Hour' rule

The Democratic majority in Congress continues to reject calls to actually read bills before voting on them.

From Robert Romano of the NetRight Nation Blog:

If a growing number of House members that signed a discharge petition for H. Res. 554 have their way, every single bill in Congress will be held for least 72 business hours Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) prior to passage for a mandatory review by each house.

The discharge petition initiated by Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR2) has obtained 182 signatures, including the bill's sponsor, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA3). Walden did so on the same day the Senate Finance Committee explicitly voted against allowing 72 hours to review ObamaCare once it was finally written.

Only 7 of Pennsylvania's 19 House members have signed the petition: Reps. Charlie Dent, Bill Shuster, Glenn Thompson, Todd Platts, Joe Pitts, Jim Gerlach and Tim Murphy. All 7 are Republicans.

What about your member of Congress? What are they hiding? Why do they want to rush through votes before anyone has a chance to read the bill?

For a complete list of the members of Congress who signed the petition, click here.

Albert Paschall: Keep public notices in newspapers

Albert Paschall uses his latest Somedays column to examine current efforts by the Pennsylvania Legislature to move public notices out of newspapers and onto government Web sites.

Proponents say the move would save taxpayers money, but critics say it's another attempt by politicians to keep constituents in the dark about important meetings and votes by local government, school boards and county commissioners.

Paschall is leery of the rational offered by Pennsylvania lawmakers.

From his column:

In an effort led by State Rep. Barbara McIllvaine Smith, the code that governs legal advertising in newspapers would change. Legal ads would become part of a municipality's Web site. It might work for the estimated 60% of Pennsylvanians who have home based convenient access to the Internet. For the 40% that do not, especially in development threatened areas of rural Pennsylvania, it creates another vacuum in government that this state does not need. For people with cross regional interests it means trolling Internet sites for hours trying to keep abreast of what all the different townships and boroughs are doing. Governments aren't without bias either and left to their own devices, well, newspapers have well chronicled the mischief that can and does exist.

This is not the time to end legal notices in newspapers. With federal 'stimulus' dollars being poured into building projects and the pell-mell run to create them, the public's right to know is more important than ever. Someday if Harrisburg develops the courage to modernize Pennsylvania's anachronistic Municipal Planning Code then it can be determined how best to inform the citizenry of what is going in their own backyards.

Read the full column, "In Their Own Backyards," at PAtownhall.com

Also check out this earlier post in which a Montgomery County state representative admits some of his fellow lawmakers supporting the legal notices change may be motivated by revenge against the watchdog media.

'An average lawmaker might see this as an opportunity to punish the newspapers that have blown the dome off the capital'

I've long suspected that Pennsylvania legislators have been looking for ways to exact revenge on newspapers for exposing the 2005 payjacking, the Bonusgate scandal and an assortment of other unsavory practices in Harrisburg.

This year's efforts to remove public notices (that tiny advertising in the back of newspapers about government meetings and actions) from newspapers doesn't make much sense on the surface.

Of all the pressing problems facing Pennsylvanians, the publication of legal notices wouldn't make the Top 100. So why is the Legislature working on changing the laws?

School boards, county and municipal governments spend less than 1 percent of their annual budgets on legal notices. If proponents of changing the law are to be believed that they're trying to save taxpayers money, there are so many other areas that can be cut.

Newspapers have written editorials opposing the change on the grounds that it would make it more difficult for taxpayers to keep an eye on their local school boards and municipal governments.

Now we have a member of the state Legislature who is wondering out loud what the real motivation behind the move is.

"An average lawmaker might see this as an opportunity to punish the newspapers that have blown the dome off the capital and shed light on some of our practices," State Rep. Mike Vereb, R-150, told The Norristown Times-Herald in a recent interview.

From a story by reporter Carl Rotenberg:

Times Herald Editor Stan Huskey introduced the subject of pulling the publication of public notices out of daily newspapers, a proposal floated by a state representative in the spring legislative session.

"Local governments are required to post public notices," Huskey said. "The idea of taking notices out of newspapers and putting them online will basically insure that the real watchdogs of local government no longer have an opportunity to see what is going on in their own backyard."

Vereb voted against the bill, he said, in the judiciary committee.

He served on the West Norriton Board of Commissioners before getting elected to the general assembly in 2007.

"Why wouldn't you advertise in the newspapers? We ought to look at more Web-based information. Newspapers serve a vital, vital interest for the folks who do not own a computer or use a computer," Vereb said.

He pointed out that all of the land development legal notices were paid for through township filing fees.

"An average lawmaker might see this as an opportunity to punish the newspapers that have blown the dome off the capital and shed light on some of our practices," he said.

Vereb supported providing more information about government actions and meetings through multiple notices. He said the printed notices kept the public meetings on schedule and reduced the number of postponed meetings.

"It keeps our local folks honest," he said, "and it should keep our state folks honest, as well."

Read more of Vereb's views on various state issues at the newspaper's Web site.

Also, the Reading Eagle published an excellent editorial addressing the public notice debate, "Issue not about money but rather access to information"

O'Pake, Folmer back bill to keep public in the dark

State Sen. Mike O'Pake's hometown newspaper takes the veteran Democratic lawmaker to task for supporting a bill that would lift the requirement that public agencies advertise their legal notices in newspapers.

Senate Bill 419 "would open the door for abuses that could cost taxpayers much more than the cost of those ads," argues the Reading Eagle.

From a recent editorial:

Less than a year after Pennsylvania finally passed an Open-Records Act that was worthy of the name, some in the state Senate - including State Sen. Michael A. O'Pake - have taken a step that would undermine the transparency of government at every level in the commonwealth.

O'Pake, a Reading Democrat, is a co-sponsor of legislation that would end the requirement for the state, counties, municipalities and school districts to advertise their public notices in newspapers of general circulation. Instead, they would be allowed to post such legal notices on government Web sites.

O'Pake isn't the only area state Senator who supports the misguided bill.

Sen. Mike Folmer, a Republican who up to now has been a strong supporter of reform and open government, also backs the Senate move to keep taxpayers in the dark.

From the editorial:

Folmer, a Lebanon Republican, said he also supports the bill because government agencies across the commonwealth could save as much as $23 million annually in advertising, according to a study from the Harrisburg campus of Penn State University.

But the amount saved is insignificant compared to the billions government spends (and wastes) every year. One of the few ways taxpayer know how their money is spent is through legal notices.

"We understand and applaud almost any effort to save public dollars, especially now when so many people are out of work. But this effort would save money at the expense of openness, which could cost the taxpayers much more in the long run," the editorial concludes.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site and write to O'Pake and Folmer and urge them to reconsider their support of SB 419.

PA Senate targets newspapers

Some members of the Pennsylvania Senate are pushing legislation that may put a final nail in the coffin of many newspapers across the state.

A bill in the Pennsylvania Legislature proposes removing public notices from newspapers and allowing government agencies to post information online on various Web sites.

That would not only drive away much-needed revenue for struggling newspapers, but would leave taxpayers in the dark about how government spends their money, argues the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

From an editorial in The Pottstown Mercury:

Nearly a century ago, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law requiring local townships, boroughs, school districts and other government entities to place notices in the local newspaper advising citizens of pending ordinances, budget spending proposals, property sales, election information, zoning changes, among other important issues.

The idea behind that early law was to inform residents affected by government plans. For years, that legislation provided a safeguard of open government — making it more difficult for elected officials to enact laws and spend money without notifying taxpayers.

Now, Senate Bill 419 would allow the government to control its own public notices and eliminate the independent, third-party verification that newspaper publication provides. It would be all too easy to manipulate the bidding process, favor certain contractors, and shield critical information.

Have you ever tried to navigate through a state Web site? It's nearly impossible to find information. And believe me, government bureaucrats will make it as difficult as they can to find legal notices online.

And what about the people who don't have access to the Internet? SB 419 clearly falls under the category of "If it's not broke, why fix it?"

It also makes you wonder what the real motive of lawmakers is. Could the bill be payback for newspapers exposing all the corruption in Harrisburg?

It's time to contact your local state senator and tell them that SB 419 should never see the light of day.

Read more in this editorial published in The Pottstown Mercury.

Newspaper: Rendell blocks public access to government documents

Good story in today's edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer by reporter Angela Couloumbis about how Gov. Ed Rendell is going out of his way to block public access to government documents.

That assessment comes from Terry Mutchler, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Office of Public Records. Mutchler has written a letter to the governor expressing her concerns about his secretive administration.

Makes you wonder what the governor has to hide from Pennsylvania taxpayers.

From Couloumbis' story:

In the three-page letter, obtained by The Inquirer, Mutchler revealed a list of her concerns over how the administration has dealt with her and her staff - as well as individual records requests - since she was tapped to lead the open-records office in June.

According to her letter, the situation has gotten so bad that lawyers in Rendell's office have put representatives of every state agency on notice not to even take her calls. Everything has to be in writing, the lawyers insist.

"At a maximum, these examples demonstrate an anti-open-government spirit," Mutchler, a reporter turned lawyer, lamented in her letter to Rendell, written late last month.

She continued: "Some agencies ... are using the Right-to-Know law as a shield with which to block information rather than a tool with which to open records of government."

Read the full story at the newspaper's Web site.

Newspaper: Open Records Office blows it

Talk about failing to live up to your name.

Operating for just three months, Pennsylvania's new Open Records Office has already made a bonehead decision on a clear case of a school board violating the state's Sunshine Act.

The office's decision to side with the school board in denying the public access to budget information has been criticized by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, and is the subject of an editorial in The Pottstown Mercury.

"These are public access laws and if they're going to be interpreted, I think they should be interpreted on the side of public access," Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the association, told The Associated Press.

Melewsky was responding to a dispute between the Allentown Morning Call and the Northampton Area School Board, which denied a reporter's access to preliminary budget information.

From The Mercury editorial:

Pennsylvania's open-meetings law — also called the Sunshine Act — defines "deliberation" as "the discussion of agency business held for the purpose of making a decision."

Melewsky said the Right-to-Know and open-meetings laws are intended to ensure public access to most agency deliberations, whether they are confined to the day of the vote or unfold over the course of weeks.

"If we don't have the documents to follow along in those discussions, then the Sunshine Act and (the provision of the Right-to-Know Law) could be rendered meaningless," she said.

The newspaper association, which lobbied for last year's overhaul of one of the nation's weakest open-records laws, warned that the decision could turn back the clock by more than two decades to a time when the open-meetings law required policy-makers to hold open meetings only when they were voting or taking official action — allowing them to debate issues and make decisions behind closed doors.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.

'Let Us Read the Bill' campaign launched

Do you get the feeling members of Congress don't know what they're voting on?

The Institute for Policy Innovation has joined the Sunlight Foundation in the "Read the Bill" initiative designed to educate the public on the importance of Congress posting all proposed legislation online "to ensure both elected officials and citizens have the chance to read and understand legislation 72 hours before it is debated."

From an Institute for Policy Innovation release:

"Forty-two and a half seconds per page -- that's how long members of Congress were given to read, understand, evaluate and consider all the implications for the largest spending bill in history - the so-called 'stimulus' package," said Bartlett Cleland, director of the IPI Center for Technology Freedom.

"Even worse, the public never had a chance to access the language of the bill before passage," said Cleland.

Unfortunately, the recent stimulus bill was not the first legislation to fly through Congress with hardly a review. Too much groundbreaking legislation has done the same over the years with little to no time for a responsible, thorough assessment.

"By definition this is information that we, the people, own -- not to mention that we also pay for the repercussions," said Cleland.

For more information on "Read the Bill," visit www.ReadTheBill.org

For more on the Institute for Public Innovation, follow the link below:

Institute for Policy Innovation: Let Us Read the Bill