2/1/2015
By Jake Corman
Seven years ago amid much debate, the state's Office of Open Records was established as part of a package of necessary reforms that dramatically overhauled the state's open records laws.
View full sizeSenate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre
The 2008 law was hailed nationally for increasing transparency in government and creating an enduring independence by establishing the OOR.
The law shifted the burden of proving if a record should be public from the requestor to the government agency.
At the same time, it created the independent watchdog agency that would serve as an independent arbiter, hearing open record appeals when citizens were denied access to government records.
According to the Office's website, its core mission is "to enforce the state's Right-to-Know law and to serve as a resource for citizens, public officials and members of the media in obtaining public records of their government." This law and the office has been a model for other states.
We believed then - just as we do now - that only through the independence of the office can we ensure that proper scrutiny can be given to government through its public records.
Gov. Tom Wolf's Jan 22 attempted removal of the office's new executive director, Erik Arneson, set a precedent for undoing the wall of independence between the Office of the Governor and the Office of Open Records.
Wolf's attempted removal of Arneson seriously jeopardizes the independence of this office and clearly violates the objective of the Legislature in passing the law.
The head of the office cannot be expected to promote access to government records and information if the qualified individual can be removed when a government official is unhappy with the decisions made by the office.
Because of Wolf's actions, the Senate Republican Caucus has filed a petition before Commonwealth Court to defend the integrity of a statute and protect the independence of the Office of Open Records.
If the executive director can be summarily removed by a governor, then it is certainly not an independent office by any definition. It's essentially a part of the administration, compromising the ability of the office to make impartial decisions about government entities.
During a presentation in Washington state in November 2009, the Office of Open Records' first executive director, Terry Mutchler, was asked about the independence of the Pennsylvania office.
According to a summary of the presentation, she answered that Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law provides a six-year term for her position and she may only be removed for cause. She emphasized that it is critical for the board to be independent.
We couldn't agree more. In a sworn affidavit, the author of the law said the legislative intent of Act 3 was to establish that the executive director of the OOR was appointed for a six-year term and is not subject to removal at the pleasure of the Governor.
The six-year term was designed to prevent the possibility of the executive director being removed by a governor without cause.
After Mutchler's resignation on Jan. 9, Arneson's appointment as the new executive director was welcomed across the state.
He played a key role in developing the Open Records Law. His reputation for advocating to make government operations more open, accessible and responsive to the media and citizens is well known.
Our experience with Arneson has taught us that he will uphold the Right-to-Know and exhaustively handle the thousands of cases that come before the office each year.
Casting aside ideology, it is clear that Arneson is more than qualified for this position and will maintain the independence of the office.
Wolf has praised Arneson's qualifications to the media. In the letter notifying Mr. Arneson that he was removed from the executive director position, Wolf did not say he was displeased with Arneson's job performance or cite any cause for removal. Instead, he expressed displeasure with the process.
Under the state Constitution, the Governor remains in office until noon Jan. 20. The Governor does not stop governing immediately after the election. Wolf may not agree with the process, but changing that requires amending the state's constitution.
It's unfortunate that we have to come to the point of taking this matter before the courts.
However, our obligation is to defend the intention of the statute and the impartiality of the Office of Open Records.
Our only option to protect the continued independence of the office was to take the matter before Commonwealth Court.
Jake Corman, a Republican, is the state Senate Majority Leader. He represents the Centre County-based 34th Senate District.
source
By Jake Corman
Seven years ago amid much debate, the state's Office of Open Records was established as part of a package of necessary reforms that dramatically overhauled the state's open records laws.
View full sizeSenate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre The law shifted the burden of proving if a record should be public from the requestor to the government agency.
At the same time, it created the independent watchdog agency that would serve as an independent arbiter, hearing open record appeals when citizens were denied access to government records.
According to the Office's website, its core mission is "to enforce the state's Right-to-Know law and to serve as a resource for citizens, public officials and members of the media in obtaining public records of their government." This law and the office has been a model for other states.
We believed then - just as we do now - that only through the independence of the office can we ensure that proper scrutiny can be given to government through its public records.
Gov. Tom Wolf's Jan 22 attempted removal of the office's new executive director, Erik Arneson, set a precedent for undoing the wall of independence between the Office of the Governor and the Office of Open Records.
Wolf's attempted removal of Arneson seriously jeopardizes the independence of this office and clearly violates the objective of the Legislature in passing the law.
The head of the office cannot be expected to promote access to government records and information if the qualified individual can be removed when a government official is unhappy with the decisions made by the office.
Because of Wolf's actions, the Senate Republican Caucus has filed a petition before Commonwealth Court to defend the integrity of a statute and protect the independence of the Office of Open Records.
If the executive director can be summarily removed by a governor, then it is certainly not an independent office by any definition. It's essentially a part of the administration, compromising the ability of the office to make impartial decisions about government entities.
During a presentation in Washington state in November 2009, the Office of Open Records' first executive director, Terry Mutchler, was asked about the independence of the Pennsylvania office.
According to a summary of the presentation, she answered that Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law provides a six-year term for her position and she may only be removed for cause. She emphasized that it is critical for the board to be independent.
We couldn't agree more. In a sworn affidavit, the author of the law said the legislative intent of Act 3 was to establish that the executive director of the OOR was appointed for a six-year term and is not subject to removal at the pleasure of the Governor.
The six-year term was designed to prevent the possibility of the executive director being removed by a governor without cause.
After Mutchler's resignation on Jan. 9, Arneson's appointment as the new executive director was welcomed across the state.
He played a key role in developing the Open Records Law. His reputation for advocating to make government operations more open, accessible and responsive to the media and citizens is well known.
Our experience with Arneson has taught us that he will uphold the Right-to-Know and exhaustively handle the thousands of cases that come before the office each year.
Casting aside ideology, it is clear that Arneson is more than qualified for this position and will maintain the independence of the office.
Wolf has praised Arneson's qualifications to the media. In the letter notifying Mr. Arneson that he was removed from the executive director position, Wolf did not say he was displeased with Arneson's job performance or cite any cause for removal. Instead, he expressed displeasure with the process.
Under the state Constitution, the Governor remains in office until noon Jan. 20. The Governor does not stop governing immediately after the election. Wolf may not agree with the process, but changing that requires amending the state's constitution.
It's unfortunate that we have to come to the point of taking this matter before the courts.
However, our obligation is to defend the intention of the statute and the impartiality of the Office of Open Records.
Our only option to protect the continued independence of the office was to take the matter before Commonwealth Court.
Jake Corman, a Republican, is the state Senate Majority Leader. He represents the Centre County-based 34th Senate District.
source
No comments:
Post a Comment