LBFC Report: Recommendations

Open records_logo stackedThe report released today by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee entitled “Costs to Implement the Right-to-Know Law” includes eight recommendations, four for the General Assembly and four for the OOR.

I support all eight recommendations (one, as noted below, with some reservations). In more detail:

LBFC Recommendations for the General Assembly

Recommendation: Require agencies to provide AORO contact information to include name, telephone number, email address, and physical address to the OOR annually or whenever there is a change in the information.

Response: The OOR currently collects this information on a very informal basis. However, a statutory mandate for agencies to provide AORO contact information to the OOR, combined with technological improvements already in development (i.e., an online AORO database), would allow us to proceed in a far more efficient manner.

Recommendation: Require agencies to prominently post required RTKL information on their websites and specifically define AORO contact information to include the name, telephone number, email address, and physical address of the AORO.

Response: Like LBFC, the OOR has found that it can sometimes be difficult or impossible to locate AORO information on an agency website. In addition to supporting a new statutory requirement that the information be “prominently” posted, the OOR will continue to emphasize this as a best practice in our training.

Continue reading

LBFC Report: Highlights

Open records_logo stackedHere are highlights from the report released today by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee entitled “Costs to Implement the Right-to-Know Law.”

The report found that “most of Pennsylvania’s state and local government agencies receive few RTKL requests, most of the requests are easily fulfilled at a relatively low cost, and only a small percentage of the requests are appealed.”

Annual Costs to Agencies

  • Almost 54 percent of agencies reported an annual cost of $500 or less to comply with the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
  • About 92 percent of agencies reported an annual cost of $10,000 or less.
  • The total cost of responding to RTKL requests by all agencies in 2016 is estimated at $5.7 million to $9.7 million. With more than 6,000 agencies across the state, that’s an average cost of just $950 to $1,617 per agency.

Continue reading

Requesting Police Video and Audio in Pennsylvania

Open records_logo stackedAct 22 of 2017 (specifically, Chapter 67A of the Act) now governs the process of requesting audio and video recordings in the possession of law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania.

We’ve added a page to the Office of Open Records website which covers the topic in some detail (although it’s always a good idea to review the law itself). Here are some highlights.

Act 22 applies to “any audio recording or video recording made by a law enforcement agency” — the Right-to-Know Law does not apply to requests for those recordings.

Act 22 defines “law enforcement agency” as:

  • The Office of the Attorney General;
  • A District Attorney’s Office; or
  • An agency that employs a law enforcement officer.

Requests for police recordings must:

  • Be sent within 60 days of the recorded event;
  • Be sent to the law enforcement agency’s Open Records Officer;
  • Include the date and time of the event; and
  • Include the requester’s relationship to the event.

In addition, if the recording was made inside a residence, the request must identify every person present (unless their identities are unknown and not reasonably ascertainable).

After receiving a request, the agency has 30 days to respond. A request may be denied if the recording includes:

  • Potential evidence in a criminal matter; or
  • Information pertaining to an investigation or a matter in which a criminal charge has been filed; or
  • Confidential information; or
  • Victim information; and
  • Reasonable redaction will not safeguard the potential evidence or the information.

If a request is granted, the agency can charge “reasonable fees” (which is undefined in the law) for a copy of the recording.

If a request is denied, the requester has 30 days to file an appeal with the appropriate Court of Common Pleas. There’s a $125 filing fee, and the appeal must include:

  • Copies of the request and any response(s);
  • Proof the agency’s Open Records Officer was served with the appeal; and
  • If the recording was made inside a residence, proof that everyone who was in the residence was served with the appeal (unless their identities are unknown and not reasonably ascertainable).

Act 22 does allow for the discretionary release of police recordings: Nothing in the law precludes a law enforcement agency or a prosecuting attorney with jurisdiction from choosing to release an audio or video recording, with or without a written request. (In certain cases, the law enforcement agency can only release the recording with the written permission of the prosecuting attorney.)

Pennsylvania’s New Medical Marijuana Act

by J. Chadwick Schnee
Assistant Chief Counsel

On April 17, 2016, Governor Wolf signed Senate Bill 3, prime-sponsored by Senator Mike Folmer and also known as the Medical Marijuana Act, into law as Act 16 of 2016. Although the connection between medical marijuana and the Right-to-Know Law may not be obvious, the Medical Marijuana Act contains several provisions involving public access to records related to medical marijuana.

Continue reading

Open Data Initiative for Pennsylvania

Yesterday, Governor Tom Wolf announced an open data initiative for Pennsylvania, something I’m very excited about. I’ll have more to say on this in the coming months, but for now here’s the Governor’s complete press release (and here’s a link to the Executive Order he signed).

***

Governor Wolf Announces Open Data Initiative to Engage Citizens in Innovative Policy Solutions

April 19, 2016

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf signed an executive order today to release agency data to the public in open, machine readable formats.

“One of our most valuable and underutilized resources in state government is data,” said Governor Wolf. “Our goal is to make data available in order to engage citizens, create economic opportunities for businesses and entrepreneurs, and develop innovative policy solutions that improve program delivery and streamline operations.”

Continue reading

Pennsylvania Ranks 4th in Public Access to Info

Earlier this week, the Center for Public Integrity published the results of its 2015 State Integrity Investigation. Each state was ranked in a variety of categories ranging from Political Financing and Electoral Oversight to Procurement and Internal Auditing.

As Executive Director of the Office of Open Records, the category that most interested me was Public Access to Information.

And for Public Access to Information, Pennsylvania ranked 4th in the country.

That’s good news, and I’m proud of that ranking. When you examine the study in detail, it’s evident there are areas which can be improved — but the fact that Pennsylvania is ranked 4th for Public Access to Information is worth celebrating.

With a total of 68 points, Pennsylvania was only ranked behind Iowa (73), Utah (70), and Hawaii (70). (By letter grade, Iowa, Utah, and Hawaii were each given a C- for Public Access to Information; Pennsylvania was given a D+.)

Under the general category of Public Access for Information, states were evaluated on 13 issues. Here’s how Pennsylvania was scored:

  • In law, citizens have a right of access to government information through a defined mechanism. YES
  • In law, citizens have a right of access to private sector information through a defined mechanism. YES
  • In law, there is an entity/ies to monitor the application of access to information laws. MODERATE
  • In law, citizens have a right of appeal if access to government information is denied. YES
  • In law, there is an open data law, requiring the government to publish data online in an open format. NO
  • In practice, branches of government, state agencies and government officials do not claim to be exempt from access to information laws. 100
  • In practice, private sector information related to government information is not claimed to be exempt from access to information laws. 100
  • In practice, the calendars of both the governor and legislators are available to the public. 50
  • In practice, citizens receive responses to access to information requests within a reasonable time period and at no cost. 50
  • In practice, access to information requests are fully answered and/or detailed reasons for denying information are provided. 100
  • In practice, citizens can resolve appeals to access to information requests within a reasonable time period and at no cost. 100
  • In practice, the entity/ies to monitor the application of access to information laws independently initiates investigations and imposes penalties on offenders. 25
  • In practice, government responses to FOI requests are made available in open data format. 0

As you can see, of the 13 issues analyzed, Pennsylvania scored “yes” or “100” on a majority — seven — of them. That’s great, but of course it also means there’s some room for improvement in the other six.

The only two categories where Pennsylvania scored “no” or “0” were both related to open data. OpenDataPhilly is doing good work in this area, as is the Western Pennsylvania Regional Data Center. At the state level, both Hawaii and Utah got good marks for their open data efforts.

The Center for Public Integrity’s page for Pennsylvania goes into a good level of detail explaining each of the grades. If you’re interested in this kind of thing, it’s well worth spending some time reading through their work.