The people who represent you in D.C. and Harrisburg are allowed to keep their calendars secret
This story originally appeared in Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from the Spotlight PA State College bureau. Sign up at spotlightpa.org/newsletters/talkofthetown.
STATE COLLEGE — Since President Donald Trump's inauguration, multiple protests have been held outside U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson's Bellefonte office.
That includes a March 18 event where constituents voiced frustration over the Republican's support of funding cuts under the Trump administration.
Thompson did not appear despite knowing about the event, Margie Swoboda, chair of the Centre County Democrats, told the Centre Daily Times: 'We wish he would be here to talk with us — that's all we want.'
Pinpointing exactly what Thompson was doing that day is impossible without him disclosing it. The U.S. House wasn't in session, and Thompson — whose district includes all or part of 18 counties in north-central Pennsylvania — doesn't have to share his schedule.
Neither federal nor state open records laws allow the public to access their elected leaders' work calendars.
At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act applies only to agencies and does not cover Congress, said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, of which Spotlight PA is a member. 'Congress wrote the law, and they did not write it to include themselves or their own records,' she said.
Spotlight PA asked Thompson's office to provide his work calendar. A spokesperson did not respond to the request but said in an email, 'Mr. Thompson and his staff have held more than 500 meetings in the district and Washington, DC with constituents on a wide range of topics. … He frequently holds telephone town halls, which enable engagement with thousands of residents of the 15th District.'
(The news outlet also sought the calendars of three other congressional representatives for the area; none responded.)
In Pennsylvania, the public can access some legislative records in a limited fashion, Melewsky told Spotlight PA. The state's Right-to-Know Law defines 19 categories of information regarding the General Assembly — mostly dealing with the receipt and expenditure of public funds — that are accessible to the public.
But the work calendars of Pennsylvania legislators do not fit into any of the categories and similarly remain out of reach from constituents, she said.
'How [elected officials] spend their time is just as important as how they spend our money,' Melewsky said. 'Because the law isn't helpful … the public really has to depend on the good graces of their public officials to recognize why it's important to have transparency and disclosure of this kind of information.'
Details of meetings legislators have with constituents, colleagues, lobbyists, or special interest groups could shed light on the forces influencing the views of lawmakers that ultimately inform public policy decisions. Understanding what is discussed in these meetings or how often people from inside and outside the government interact with officials lends transparency to their work.
The issue of calendar access has played a role in the governance of Pennsylvania before. Former Gov. Tom Corbett, a Republican, fought a lengthy legal battle during his administration with an Associated Press reporter. While Corbett ended up providing some information on how he spent his work time, the negative attention drew criticism from his opponent and successor, Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf. Wolf made transparency about his calendars a tradition during his eight-year tenure, which Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro did not continue.
Melewsky said that officials and agencies are free to make this information available even when the law does not guarantee it to the public, and that they are free to exercise discretion over sensitive information.
'The public has a right to know,' she said. 'For practical purposes and from a good-government perspective, there should be transparency related to that.'
and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at spotlightpa.org/donate. Spotlight PA is funded by foundations and readers like you who are committed to accountability and public-service journalism that gets results.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Buzz Feed
27 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
18 People Reacted To Trump Possibly Pardoning Diddy
As you probably know by now, Sean 'Diddy' Combs was indicted in 2024 on federal charges including sex trafficking and racketeering. Recently, HuffPost and BuzzFeed wrote about how Fox News reporter Peter Doocy asked the president if he would consider pardoning Diddy. Trump told Doocy, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, that relationship busted up, from what I read." "I don't know, he didn't tell me that. But I'd read some … nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden." Trump, who once ran in the same wealthy social circles as Diddy, continued, "You know, it's different. You become a much different person when you run for politics, and you do what's right. I could do other things, and I'm sure he'd like me, and I'm sure other people would like me, but it wouldn't be as good for our country." In other words, Trump didn't give a definitive answer on whether he would pardon Diddy. People in the comments had a lot to say on the topic. Here are some of the best replies: "If Diddy is found guilty, he should not be pardoned. Stop pardoning people who were found or plead guilty." —cole Melton "When considering whether to pardon someone, Trump couldn't care less about whether a person is guilty. As long as the person has some kind words for Trump and/or helped Trump get even richer, the person has a good chance of getting a pardon." "Ask Trump voters if they voted for this corruption of the pardon system."—Carl Hayman "The fact that Trump commented on pardoning Diddy during an active, ongoing trial…I am just speechless. It completely undermines the entire justice system." "Always follow the money. Trump is using the power to pardon as an ATM. He only cares about the next money making opportunity, not law and order, justice, the Constitution, or keeping the guilty in jail. And most assuredly not you and me." —d icard "Even MAGA people on Fox and Breitbart are exploding over this. They hate this idea. Democrats need to keep the topic of Trump possibly pardoning Diddy front and center. Talk about it whenever they can. Keep it in the headlines." —TACO Trump "He says, 'I would certainly look at the facts.' And then what? Ignore them like he did with the results of the 2020 election? It used to be that if you wanted to win a high political office, you had to have character. Now all it takes (at least if you're a Republican) is to be a character." —Carl Olson "'You are the company you keep' has never been more true than as it relates to these two." "There is no justice system if anyone can simply prove love to their president and get a pardon." —Cory Crete"Pardons are now for sale."—James Gettings "Well, being liked is obviously the most important factor in any pardon." —Les Vogt "This isn't just grotesque; it's the rot made visible. Trump floating a pardon for a man indicted for sex trafficking, while reminiscing about party invitations and wounded egos, is less a statement of justice than a confession of moral bankruptcy. It's not about innocence or guilt — it's about whether someone 'used to really like' him." "In Trump's world, the law isn't sacred; it's a velvet rope outside a nightclub, waved aside with the casual shrug of a man picking names from a guest list."—Miles West "If our Republic is still standing in a few years, a different Congress must amend the Constitution to limit presidential pardons." "No more presidential pardons. I would let them commute death sentences, but nothing more. Enough of this abuse. These people had their day in court and have had chances to appeal. I don't trust anyone with that power anymore. Get rid of it." —Charles James "It's so weird (but so typical) that Trump has to tell everyone that Diddy 'used to like me a lot,' as if that's the most relevant thing about the issue. What a terrible thing it must be to live a life actually believing inside that you're incapable of being loved. That's the overriding reality that has made Trump who he is — an immensely insecure, flawed man." —David Hardy "'When you're president you do what's right.' I can't believe he said that because he certainly doesn't abide by that whatsoever." —Jenny Tayla "Whenever he talks about anyone — and I mean anyone — he always comments on if that person likes him or not. Narcissistic dictator." "I pray that Trump does not pardon Diddy. He's just as bad as Jeffrey Epstein and R. Kelly." —smileyzombie492 "Trump is sans empathy. He is a woman-hating dumpster fire." —jamesnylan And finally, "At least he didn't say he would. I was relieved to not read even that. The bar is low. 😭" The article people commented on originally appeared on HuffPost.
Washington Post
35 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Minnesota killings spread fear in country riven by violence against politicians
Daniel Hernandez, whose life has been shaped by violence directed at politicians, woke up Saturday morning to missed calls and messages from loved ones who had seen the news that two state legislators had been shot in Minnesota and immediately worried about his safety. Hernandez, a former Democratic state lawmaker who is now running in a special election to represent Arizona's 7th Congressional District, began his political career as an intern for former Rep. Gabby Giffords and was credited with helping to save her from a mass shooter in 2011. Last week, a bullet struck the car window of one of his campaign staffers outside his family home, which doubles as his campaign headquarters. His mother and staffers were inside, he said.
Politico
40 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump has a plan to remake the housing-finance system. It's baffling to many lawmakers and experts.
GOP lawmakers and the mortgage industry are raising questions about the Trump administration's plans to maintain government control over much of the nation's housing finance system, defying expectations that it would back off. President Donald Trump surprised the industry late last month by pledging to take public Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-controlled companies that stand behind half the $16 trillion residential mortgage market — while preserving an implicit federal guarantee for their solvency. His top housing regulator, Bill Pulte, who oversees the companies, added to the confusion by saying the administration is exploring ways to sell shares while keeping the companies under government authority. The insistence on preserving significant sway over the two mortgage giants, which were seized by the Bush administration during the financial crisis and placed in conservatorship, is setting up a potential rift with Republicans — and possibly even some administration aides who have long worked to reduce the government's footprint in the housing market. 'I want to get them out of conservatorship,' said Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), chair of the Senate Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie. 'But I want to be very careful about how we do it, because we need the secondary market, and we need it to work,' he added, referring to the market where mortgage loans are purchased and sold to investors. Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, said 'we need to continue to investigate recapitalization and releasing' the companies from government control. The question of what to do with Fannie and Freddie has bedeviled policymakers for decades, with Republicans wanting the government to take its hands off housing finance and Democrats fearing that privatizing the firms would destabilize the market and push up mortgage rates. At stake is a potential windfall of hundreds of billions of dollars for an administration that is staring at massive fiscal deficits. The government holds a roughly $340 billion liquidation preference for the two companies, by one estimate — meaning the money would go to the Treasury Department before anyone else in the event of a sale. Pulte, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, will meet with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins on June 17 to discuss the future of Fannie and Freddie, underscoring the importance of the issue. Fannie and Freddie don't make loans themselves, but rather purchase them from mortgage companies and bundle them into securities to sell on the secondary market, freeing up the lenders to make more loans. That, plus the government guarantee, helps keep mortgage rates down, supporters say. Trump was widely expected to support privatization, after his first administration worked to prepare the companies for their eventual release. But his latest comments look more like what former President Joe Biden would do, according to Jim Parrott, a nonresident fellow at the Urban Institute and a former economic adviser in the Obama White House. 'In the Biden administration, you could imagine a version of this,' Parrott said. 'The fact that we're hearing about it in this administration, I think, is catching folks by surprise.' The FHFA responded in an email that it is 'studying how, if the President elects to take Fannie and Freddie public, it can be done in the safest and soundest manner which includes keeping them in conservatorship.' It added: 'In any scenario, we will ensure the [mortgage-backed securities] market is safe and sound and that there is no upward pressure on rates.' White House deputy press secretary Harrison Fields said the administration 'is committed to strengthening the Federal Housing Finance Agency to advance the President's mission of restoring the dream of homeownership for all Americans.' Keeping Fannie and Freddie in conservatorship, according to one shareholder, amounts to attaching 'training wheels' as the government figures out how to monetize its stake. 'I think Pulte has probably confused people more than anything with his message,' said Tim Pagliara, a shareholder and author of the book 'Another Big Lie: How the Government Stole Billions from the American Dream of Home Ownership and Got Caught!' 'So the idea, for example, of allowing these entities to operate in conservatorship is a strategy that they probably talked about with the investment bankers on their primary concern, which is mortgage rates going up,' he added. 'It's like putting training wheels on a bike.' The administration's pronouncements have perplexed housing finance analysts who are unsure of what a scheme to take the companies public while keeping them in conservatorship would look like — or whether there would be sufficient investor appetite to make it worthwhile. JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note that they were 'flummoxed' by the comments. 'It's just hard to imagine why anybody would think there would be strong investor interest in that kind of model, unless the government were to convey they were going to run the [government-sponsored enterprises] in a way that's investor-friendly, and I think we're a long way off from that,' Parrott said. David Dworkin, president and CEO of the National Housing Conference, a stakeholders' group, agreed. 'The most important element of a successful stock sale is a board that is truly independent and has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders,' he said. 'Under conservatorship, that is actually not even allowed. So, without an independent board with a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders, there is no value to the stock.' Still, he said, 'there are far too many comments coming from major players, including the president of the United States, to avoid the conclusion that major action on conservatorship could be in the very near future.' Another housing finance analyst, granted anonymity to frankly discuss the nascent plans, also expressed skepticism about the idea that investors would bite on purchasing shares in conservatorship, with the federal government still owning the vast majority of the asset. 'The direction of that control can change at the next election,' the analyst said. 'Each administration has already demonstrated they want to use Fannie and Freddie in different ways, so what are you investing in?' For the most part, Republican lawmakers are keeping their powder dry as they wait for additional details about the administration's plans. '[Senate Banking Committee] Chairman [Tim] Scott looks forward to hearing more' from Trump and Pulte on their plans for Fannie and Freddie, spokesperson Ben Watson said. Asked if conservatorship should end, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a member of the Banking subcommittee with oversight of Fannie and Freddie, said, 'I don't know.' 'We're going to wait until the first quarter of 2026 to have that conversation,' said Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), chair of the Financial Services housing subcommittee. 'Releasing them from conservatorship, that's one thing, but most of the folks I talked to still want the federal government on the hook.' The first Trump administration worked to build capital at the companies to prepare them for the end of conservatorship, an effort led by then-Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and former Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Mark Calabria. Calabria has returned for Trump 2.0, now in a position with the White House Office of Management and Budget. Two key Treasury officials — Jonathan McKernan and Luke Pettit — also hail from the school of thought that Fannie and Freddie should be released from conservatorship. 'The Treasury Department has not really engaged on this yet — so it does not appear to me that the administration is very far into the analysis of options phase,' Parrott said. 'Until the Treasury Department really engages in any of this meaningfully, it's hard to know where all this lands.'
