Here’s the presentation they used:
Here’s a Twitter thread I posted recently exploring deadlines under the Right-to-Know Law.
Here’s a Twitter thread I posted recently exploring some common procedural issues which arise under the Right-to-Know Law.
Earlier this week, a group of interns from the Committee of Seventy visited the Office of Open Records in Harrisburg to discuss the Right-to-Know Law and the OOR.
It was a great discussion, and I very much appreciate them visiting. Here’s the presentation I used to help frame the discussion:
Earlier today, I took part in the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs’ annual conference in Hershey.
It was a great discussion, and I very much appreciate the invitation. Here’s the presentation I used:
The impact of the ruling, however, is not limited to the president.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York wrote, “This case requires us to consider whether a public official may, consistent with the First Amendment, ‘block’ a person from his Twitter account in response to the political views that person has expressed, and whether the analysis differs because that public official is the President of the United States. The answer to both questions is no.”
The full decision can be read here: Knight Institute vs. Trump
Other participants included attorneys Craig J. Staudenmaier and J. Stephen Feinour from Nauman Smith. The panel was moderated by J. Chadwick Schnee, Berks County’s First Assistant Solicitor.
It was a great discussion, and I very much appreciate the invitation.
The discussion covered a fairly wide variety of topics, but the presentation I prepared focused on the Office of Open Records’ survey of Agency Open Records Officers (AOROs) and the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee’s separate survey of AOROs: