Office of Open Records requests higher funding
February 18, 2010 | Filed in: Office of
Open Records
By DARWYYN DEYO | Pennsylvania
Independent
The head of Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records spoke before the House Appropriations Committee today to requesting more tax funds than proposed in the Governor’s budget due to the high number of appeals filed by agencies contesting the release of information, and the additional lawyers the Office requires to handle these cases.
Terry Mutchler, Executive Director of the office, requested a budget of $1.5 million instead of the $1.37 million in the current budget. The budget for the Office last year was $1.25 million.
Ms. Mutchler said “"We've handled over just about 1,200 appeals, from all of your constituents, that have come to the Office of Open Records; more than 5,000 phone calls; and most significantly, which I don't know was part of the legislative intent in some ways, we are handling over 100 cases in the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court. In a word, we've turned into a mini-law firm and it's changed the nature of the work that we're doing.” The Office’s staff includes six lawyers, nine support staff, and a technology staffer.
Citing concerns over a higher burden to taxpayers, Representative William Adolph (R – Delaware), Minority Chairman, asked Ms. Mutchler if such an increase in the office’s budget was necessary, especially for requests for information that are later used for profit or what he thought were “unnecessary requests”, but Ms. Mutchler said ,“In our experience, we get complaints related to this often. However, the legislature chose not to include in the legislation something that would preclude commercial use. ... Actually, I think that it's a slippery slope and it's something for the legislature to decide and what that decision basically is: do you allow anyone to use information obtained under the Right-to-Know law and use it for their own market gain?”
Ms. Mutchler also said that the federal fee structure for different entities seeking information could solve some of the problems created by those requesting information for commercial use, but “At the same time it can cause a whole host of other problems, and most significantly what you have is you have is local governments then in the position of trying to decide: do we prevent someone from using this information for personal gain?”
In addition, she said “Nobody anticipated how much we would be in court.”
Despite the concerns raised by the committee over the number of appeals last year and the high volume of requests, Ms. Mutchler said that with Pennsylvania’s Right to Know law the commonwealth is being looked at as a model for the rest of the nation, and the office’s two major concerns are due process in the Commonwealth Court, and the choices for the requestor of information in the face of the 30-day extension that agencies can claim to take more time to respond to Right-to-Know requests.
Explaining the appeals process, Ms. Mutchler said that most of the appeals her office deals with come from government agencies contesting that requested information falls under the Right-to-Know law.
She said, “(In) most instances the cases that are going to court is the agency taking it to court; in very few instances is it the citizen,” and added if an agency has a concern over home addresses being released under Right-to-Know requests, specifically citing an injunction filed to protect school employees’ addresses being released, that “At no time has the Office of Open Records directed the release of a home address when an agency has asserted that personal safety is a risk… There’s a lot of fear about something that’s already covered in the law.”
The head of Pennsylvania’s Office of Open Records spoke before the House Appropriations Committee today to requesting more tax funds than proposed in the Governor’s budget due to the high number of appeals filed by agencies contesting the release of information, and the additional lawyers the Office requires to handle these cases.
Terry Mutchler, Executive Director of the office, requested a budget of $1.5 million instead of the $1.37 million in the current budget. The budget for the Office last year was $1.25 million.
Ms. Mutchler said “"We've handled over just about 1,200 appeals, from all of your constituents, that have come to the Office of Open Records; more than 5,000 phone calls; and most significantly, which I don't know was part of the legislative intent in some ways, we are handling over 100 cases in the Court of Common Pleas and the Commonwealth Court. In a word, we've turned into a mini-law firm and it's changed the nature of the work that we're doing.” The Office’s staff includes six lawyers, nine support staff, and a technology staffer.
Citing concerns over a higher burden to taxpayers, Representative William Adolph (R – Delaware), Minority Chairman, asked Ms. Mutchler if such an increase in the office’s budget was necessary, especially for requests for information that are later used for profit or what he thought were “unnecessary requests”, but Ms. Mutchler said ,“In our experience, we get complaints related to this often. However, the legislature chose not to include in the legislation something that would preclude commercial use. ... Actually, I think that it's a slippery slope and it's something for the legislature to decide and what that decision basically is: do you allow anyone to use information obtained under the Right-to-Know law and use it for their own market gain?”
Ms. Mutchler also said that the federal fee structure for different entities seeking information could solve some of the problems created by those requesting information for commercial use, but “At the same time it can cause a whole host of other problems, and most significantly what you have is you have is local governments then in the position of trying to decide: do we prevent someone from using this information for personal gain?”
In addition, she said “Nobody anticipated how much we would be in court.”
Despite the concerns raised by the committee over the number of appeals last year and the high volume of requests, Ms. Mutchler said that with Pennsylvania’s Right to Know law the commonwealth is being looked at as a model for the rest of the nation, and the office’s two major concerns are due process in the Commonwealth Court, and the choices for the requestor of information in the face of the 30-day extension that agencies can claim to take more time to respond to Right-to-Know requests.
Explaining the appeals process, Ms. Mutchler said that most of the appeals her office deals with come from government agencies contesting that requested information falls under the Right-to-Know law.
She said, “(In) most instances the cases that are going to court is the agency taking it to court; in very few instances is it the citizen,” and added if an agency has a concern over home addresses being released under Right-to-Know requests, specifically citing an injunction filed to protect school employees’ addresses being released, that “At no time has the Office of Open Records directed the release of a home address when an agency has asserted that personal safety is a risk… There’s a lot of fear about something that’s already covered in the law.”