Predecisional deliberations

New Pa. records office running at hectic pace

Terry Mutchler, executive director of the state Office of Open Records, has a quick response when asked how things are going. " 'Busy' is the short answer," Ms. Mutchler said last week. "We're just overwhelmed."

Ms. Mutchler and her nine-member staff routinely work 12-hour days or longer to keep pace with a flood of paperwork.

To date, they have processed 1,006 appeals, conducted 300 training sessions around the state on the new Right-to-Know Law and fielded more than 5,000 e-mail and telephone inquiries. Read More...

Opinion: State must close open records loophole

It took no time at all, only about three months, for elected Pennsylvania officials to mount a highly significant challenge to the state's fledgling Right-to-Know Law. Most observers expected a push against what had been hailed by lawmakers last year as a comprehensive defense against efforts to keep the public in the dark, especially the practice of conducting secret deliberations before springing a decision upon citizens left to wonder how they got there. And, indeed, it appears Pennsylvania's reputation as a Land of Secrets remains in intact. Read More...

Opinion: OOR decision on 'draft' policy disappointing

In a disappointing decision, on March 23, 2009, the Office of Open Records found that a draft policy that was distributed to a school board for deliberation at a public meeting – and approved at that meeting – was not a public record. Read More...

Pa. newspaper group blasts open-records ruling

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Pennsylvania Newspaper Association has sharply criticized the state Open Records Office for a ruling that the group says would allow school boards and other agencies to conduct more public business behind closed doors. Read More...

Opinion: Office of Open Records issues damaging decision

The Office of Open Records (OOR) has dealt a blow to open government, apparently finding that a budget discussion among a quorum of a school board was not "deliberation" for Right to Know Law purposes because it was, in the words of the OOR, an "informal" discussion. If this decision stands, it could have terrible repercussions for the public's right to know. Read More...