Right-to-know’ inquiries yield mixed results for staff
By GORDON GLANTZ
[Norristown] Times Herald Managing Editor
NORRISTOWN — The Times Herald partnered with The Associated Press in its 2009 audit of the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law by sending several staffers on undercover assignments to various municipalities, school districts and police departments throughout the coverage area in early October.
Pursuant to the AP’s request, our staffers sought one of five types of records that are, by state law, open to the public:
During a similar project in 2005, several staffers were recognized, thus skewing the results. This time around, we sought to scuttle our editorial staffers to places where they were least likely to be known.
In general, our staffers were treated respectfully but — in a large number of cases — also asked to take the long away around by being asked to submit formal right-to-know request forms.
Our news editor visited the Worcester Township Building seeking a public employee’s application or résumé and was greeted by a person at the front window who, after being asked for the application and résumé for the building inspector, excused herself and spoke with someone in a back office before returning to say the papers were handled by a “third party.” The news editor was asked to fill out a right-to-know request and received a letter stating the township did not have the information and, therefore, was not obligated to provide it.
The news editor also requested a copy of the superintendent’s contract for the Methacton School District. After having to reveal that she was working on a project for The Times Herald, the staffer was permitted to make copies of the requested information. She was also told to call in advance in the future and that a right-to-know request form would normally be required.
The Norristown Police Department, which has as long-standing reputation of openness with the press and makes incident and arrest reports available at its front window, seemed to get lost in a semantics issue with the assistant news editor, who asked for a “blotter” instead of “reports.”
She was intstructed by an officer to fill out a right-to-know request form and directed to speak with another Norristown employee who “seemed annoyed and bothered.”
The request was denied because “the Norristown Police Department does not maintain what would be considered a ‘blotter.’” Technically, that is correct, as the department does not keep a formal blotter because the the large amount of calls received.
The assistant news editor also visited West Norriton Township in search of three recent grant applications and reported that the first person at the counter “seemed a little annoyed” and displayed an attitude that was described as “a little intimidating.” The presence of a second woman was requested, and her demeanor was described as the polar opposite. A right-to-know request form was filled out and not responded to as of Nov. 2.
A staff reporter went to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Skippack in search of a 911 response log and was instructed to visit the state police Web Site and file a subpeona with Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. The trooper he dealt with was described “very helpful” and a right-to-know fact sheet was prominently posted in the security window of the state police lobby.
The same reporter asked for, and received, a copy of the superintendent’s contract from the Perkiomen Valley School District — a week after a right-to-know request was filed.
And a reporter visited the Upper Providence Township Police Department, where the secretary was described as “rude, skeptical of what I asked for” and “would not give my request to someone until I fully identified myself” (as a Times Herald reporter). A police officer was also described as “skeptical” and asked for a business card. Once informed the information was needed “for a story,” it was provided “within five minutes.”
The same reporter visited the Upper Merion Township Building seeking the three most recent grant applications. He was told the information could be copied for 25 cents per page. When asked if they could be viewed and the information copied, he was told a right-to-know request form would be needed. The township employee was described as “more than happy to help.”
Another reporter was dispatched to West Conshohocken, also in search of the three most recent grant applications. The woman with whom he dealt was desribed as “extremely knowledgeable and cordial.” After filing a right-to-know request, the reporter received a call saying the information was ready.
The same reporter visited the Wissahickon School District office seeking the superintendent’s contract. After being told, “sir, I’m not going to play 20 questions. I’m busy,” the reporter filled out a right-to-know request and was later informed, via a phone call, that the information was available.
A desk assistant/features writer visited the East Norriton Township Building and requested both a public employee’s application/résumé and the three most recent grant applications. A right-to-know form was filled out and access was granted (at the price of $16).
The same staffer visited the Lower Providence Township Police Department seeking a 911 response log and police blotter and was denied the information. She was asked by the dispatcher which agency she represented and told that she would have to pay for a report if she was not with a government agency. The dispatcher also told her she needed to specific about what she was looking for because the 24-hour period of Oct. 3 had “too many reports” and he was trying to help by “narrowing it down” because of the potential cost.
Lower Providence police, like Norristown, have a history of cooperation with Times Herald reporters with whom they deal on a regular basis.
[Norristown] Times Herald Managing Editor
NORRISTOWN — The Times Herald partnered with The Associated Press in its 2009 audit of the Pennsylvania Right-To-Know Law by sending several staffers on undercover assignments to various municipalities, school districts and police departments throughout the coverage area in early October.
Pursuant to the AP’s request, our staffers sought one of five types of records that are, by state law, open to the public:
- A copy of the superintendent’s employment contract with a local school district;
- A emergency time response log from a county 911 center for the 24-hour period of Oct. 3;
- A police blotter listing calls responded to from a police agency for the 24-hour period of Oct. 3;
- The application and/or résumé of a public employee from any governmental body;
- The most recent three grant applications that a municipality, county or school district has submitted.
During a similar project in 2005, several staffers were recognized, thus skewing the results. This time around, we sought to scuttle our editorial staffers to places where they were least likely to be known.
In general, our staffers were treated respectfully but — in a large number of cases — also asked to take the long away around by being asked to submit formal right-to-know request forms.
Our news editor visited the Worcester Township Building seeking a public employee’s application or résumé and was greeted by a person at the front window who, after being asked for the application and résumé for the building inspector, excused herself and spoke with someone in a back office before returning to say the papers were handled by a “third party.” The news editor was asked to fill out a right-to-know request and received a letter stating the township did not have the information and, therefore, was not obligated to provide it.
The news editor also requested a copy of the superintendent’s contract for the Methacton School District. After having to reveal that she was working on a project for The Times Herald, the staffer was permitted to make copies of the requested information. She was also told to call in advance in the future and that a right-to-know request form would normally be required.
The Norristown Police Department, which has as long-standing reputation of openness with the press and makes incident and arrest reports available at its front window, seemed to get lost in a semantics issue with the assistant news editor, who asked for a “blotter” instead of “reports.”
She was intstructed by an officer to fill out a right-to-know request form and directed to speak with another Norristown employee who “seemed annoyed and bothered.”
The request was denied because “the Norristown Police Department does not maintain what would be considered a ‘blotter.’” Technically, that is correct, as the department does not keep a formal blotter because the the large amount of calls received.
The assistant news editor also visited West Norriton Township in search of three recent grant applications and reported that the first person at the counter “seemed a little annoyed” and displayed an attitude that was described as “a little intimidating.” The presence of a second woman was requested, and her demeanor was described as the polar opposite. A right-to-know request form was filled out and not responded to as of Nov. 2.
A staff reporter went to the Pennsylvania State Police barracks in Skippack in search of a 911 response log and was instructed to visit the state police Web Site and file a subpeona with Montgomery County Common Pleas Court. The trooper he dealt with was described “very helpful” and a right-to-know fact sheet was prominently posted in the security window of the state police lobby.
The same reporter asked for, and received, a copy of the superintendent’s contract from the Perkiomen Valley School District — a week after a right-to-know request was filed.
And a reporter visited the Upper Providence Township Police Department, where the secretary was described as “rude, skeptical of what I asked for” and “would not give my request to someone until I fully identified myself” (as a Times Herald reporter). A police officer was also described as “skeptical” and asked for a business card. Once informed the information was needed “for a story,” it was provided “within five minutes.”
The same reporter visited the Upper Merion Township Building seeking the three most recent grant applications. He was told the information could be copied for 25 cents per page. When asked if they could be viewed and the information copied, he was told a right-to-know request form would be needed. The township employee was described as “more than happy to help.”
Another reporter was dispatched to West Conshohocken, also in search of the three most recent grant applications. The woman with whom he dealt was desribed as “extremely knowledgeable and cordial.” After filing a right-to-know request, the reporter received a call saying the information was ready.
The same reporter visited the Wissahickon School District office seeking the superintendent’s contract. After being told, “sir, I’m not going to play 20 questions. I’m busy,” the reporter filled out a right-to-know request and was later informed, via a phone call, that the information was available.
A desk assistant/features writer visited the East Norriton Township Building and requested both a public employee’s application/résumé and the three most recent grant applications. A right-to-know form was filled out and access was granted (at the price of $16).
The same staffer visited the Lower Providence Township Police Department seeking a 911 response log and police blotter and was denied the information. She was asked by the dispatcher which agency she represented and told that she would have to pay for a report if she was not with a government agency. The dispatcher also told her she needed to specific about what she was looking for because the 24-hour period of Oct. 3 had “too many reports” and he was trying to help by “narrowing it down” because of the potential cost.
Lower Providence police, like Norristown, have a history of cooperation with Times Herald reporters with whom they deal on a regular basis.