Latest news with #OfficeofOpenRecords
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Penn State trustees agree to legal training, improved transparency in settlement with Spotlight PA
This story was produced by the State College regional bureau of Spotlight PA, an independent, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to investigative and public-service journalism for Pennsylvania. Sign up for Talk of the Town, a weekly newsletter of local stories that dig deep, events, and more from north-central PA, at Penn State University's Board of Trustees will complete a training on the state's open meetings law and disclose more information about its closed-door gatherings as part of a settlement with Spotlight PA. The agreement, signed last week, ends a case the newsroom, in partnership with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, brought against the board in December 2023 for alleged violations of the Sunshine Act, the state law mandating transparency from governing bodies. 'The settlement ensures that one of Pennsylvania's most influential institutions will conduct its business with the transparency that taxpayers, students, faculty, and staff deserve,' said Christopher Baxter, CEO and president of Spotlight PA. 'The university's most recent decision to close seven campuses — and the effect it will have on communities across the state — underscores the need for these important reforms.' Neither Penn State nor board leadership responded to a request for comment for this story. Spotlight PA has documented the board's decadelong use of private meetings and practices that may have run afoul of the state's transparency law, including that university leadership met privately with trustees to discuss Penn State's multimillion-dollar budget deficit and to consider naming the football field after former coach Joe Paterno. Internal board communications, previously obtained by the newsroom, revealed that board leadership directed trustees to ask questions during a private session rather than at a public meeting, a request a media law attorney described as a 'gigantic red flag.' Penn State has already altered some of its practices to increase transparency. In October, a committee of top university officials held its first public meeting since 2011. Under the new settlement agreement, every meeting of the executive committee must be publicized on the board's website, and the board must continue to publish the group's meeting agendas. Additionally, according to the settlement, the board will hold a Sunshine Act training for trustees and publicly report which members completed the session. The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records is scheduled to provide the training on Sept. 11, according to the agency's calendar. Incoming trustees will be offered the training starting in 2026. Liz Wagenseller, executive director of the Office of Open Records, said in a statement that the state's open meetings law 'plays a vital role in ensuring the public can see how tax dollars are spent and how government entities operate. The Office of Open Records values every invitation to assist agencies and others subject to the law in better understanding their obligations regarding public meetings. We look forward to working with the Penn State Board of Trustees to help uphold the transparency and accountability the Act is designed to promote.' For years, the Penn State board has met behind closed doors with university officials in 'conference,' a practice allowed under the law for 'any training program or seminar, or any session arranged by State or Federal agencies for local agencies, organized and conducted for the sole purpose of providing information to agency members on matters directly related to their official responsibilities.' The public had limited insight into these gatherings. Under the agreement, the board will disclose the person providing the training and the topic. Similarly, when the trustees hold an executive session, the board will publicly say the reason why and cite the legal exemption that allows for the private meeting. The terms of the settlement will last for five years. Read the full agreement here. 'This is such an important win for transparency in the Commonwealth,' said Paula Knudsen Burke, the Pennsylvania attorney for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press who represented Spotlight PA in the case. 'The university and its board of trustees are ultimately accountable to the people of Pennsylvania, and their business is the public's business. This agreement, which explicitly includes Sunshine Act compliance training, sets a clear expectation that they can no longer hide behind closed doors and executive sessions.' The settlement ends more than 18 months of legal arguments in local court. In October 2023, Spotlight PA and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press sent the board a letter requesting the trustees 'immediately cease holding improper executive sessions and conferences, advertise and record meeting minutes for all public meetings, and halt the practice of deliberating in secret.' The university's vice president and general counsel, Tabitha Oman, responded that she was 'confident that the Board has taken its official actions and conducted its deliberations in compliance' with the law. During the board's November 2023 meetings in University Park, Spotlight PA witnessed what it believed were potential violations of the open meetings law, prompting the lawsuit in Centre County Court of Common Pleas. After the board's February and May 2024 meetings, the lawsuit was amended to include additional allegations. Throughout the legal process, Penn State argued its trustees followed the law. 'Penn State is a more transparent institution than it was a year and a half ago thanks to Spotlight PA and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,' said Sarah Rafacz, managing editor of Spotlight PA's State College bureau. 'With this agreement in place, we will see more public disclosures about the business of the trustees than ever before. Our push for transparency will also continue through our tenacious accountability reporting on the university.' In September, Commonwealth Court will tentatively hear arguments in an ongoing case between Penn State and the state Department of Education against Spotlight PA to decide whether university documents the Office of Open Records previously deemed public should be turned over to the newsroom. and help us reinvigorate local news in north-central Pennsylvania at 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.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
PA Supreme Court ruling means you may not see a suspect's mugshot in the news
PENNSYLVANIA (WTAJ) — A Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling will now change how mugshots are handled when it comes to local news outlets, including access to them. In a ruling from April, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court handed down the decision in Mezzacappa v. Northampton County after a right-to-know (RTK) request was submitted over four years ago in Northampton County. In December 2020, the request was submitted for various records, including a request for 'all mug shots taken of all inmates' from October 2020 through December 2020. The County delivered everything except the mug shots in February 2021, advising that the mug shots were exempt from disclosure under the right-to-know law because they constituted 'confidential criminal history record information,' according to the lawsuit. Later that same month, the requester appealed the denial to the Office of Open Records, which then directed the County to provide the mug shots. However, the requester filed a second RTK in which she stated she was seeking the last names of correctional officers who worked on the unit where she had been incarcerated between October 13 and October 15, 2020, as well as the previous request relating to the mug shots. In February 2021, the County granted the second request in part. The County advised that the request for the mug shots was 'insufficiently specific and unduly burdensome in the context requested,' according to the lawsuit. Furthermore, the County also noted that the mug shots could only be shared by State or local police departments as the photos comprised criminal history record information. The requester then appealed the denial for a second time, and the Office of Open Records ultimately ordered the County in March 2021 to provide the requester with the mug shots. The office noted that 'mug shots are routinely disseminated to the press, sometimes as part of a press release' and that if a mug shot contains criminal history record information, the County can redact the information, the lawsuit reads. The County then proceeded to challenge the decision made by the Office of Open Records in the Commonwealth Court, where the ruling was handed down in favor of the office, with the court holding that the mug shots do not constitute 'identifiable descriptions,' according to the lawsuit. The County then proceeded to challenge the decision in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Ultimately, the PA Supreme Court ruled that mug shots do constitute 'identifiable descriptions' as defined in 'Criminal history record information' in the Pennsylvania Constitution. We further conclude that, pursuant to Section 9121(b), criminal history record information may only be disseminated to noncriminal justice agencies and individuals by a police department, and, thus, that the County, as a non-law enforcement agency, is prohibited from releasing the mug shots requested by Appellee. Accordingly, we reverse the decisions of the Commonwealth Court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court In an email to WTAJ, the Bedford County Prison confirmed that as a result of the aforementioned ruling, the facility is unable to provide any mug shots until further notice. 'Based upon a recent PA Supreme Court decision, the County is prohibited from releasing the request intake photos (mugshots) under the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act. 18 Pa. Cons, Stat. Ann. Sec. 9101, et seq,' The email reads. 'I know this is a departure from our usual practice, but based on this court ruling, I am unable to provide these. Once I receive more information related to this decision, I will provide an additional response.' Outlets are currently advised to reach out to local or State police departments for mug shots until further information is released on the ruling. However, departments may not have photos available before someone is processed into a county prison. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Address talk of official business on self-deleting message apps
Pennsylvania lawmakers were told late last month that they should consider legislation to address the use of self-deleting messaging applications by government officials to discuss official business, the Pennsylvania Capital-Star reported. The message, delivered by open records advocates to the state Senate's Intergovernmental Operations Committee, was a necessary and timely one. Aaron Scherb, of the government accountability group Common Cause, recently told the Baltimore Sun: 'Unfortunately, at all levels of government, whether federal, state or local, we see elected officials and government officials try to avoid public records laws and retention laws by using messaging apps and self-deleting messages.' Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law means that officials' emails and other electronic communications can be deemed public records and subject to potential disclosure like any other type of record. The state Office of Open Records says that the law does not distinguish between types of records, such as printed material, electronic databases, emails and so on. Every record is subject to a two-part analysis – is it a record? That is, does it document a transaction or an activity of an agency? If so, is it a public record, or can it be withheld under the law or a court order? But messaging apps such as Signal – which recently made headlines after U.S. government officials used it to discuss plans for airstrikes on Yemen – and Snapchat can erase users' messages after a certain period of time. So when government officials use those apps to discuss public business, it can mean their messages are erased forever, with no way to go back later and see whether they should have been preserved for possible disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. The Capital-Star reported that Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, told the Senate panel: 'Oftentimes the best evidence of whether the law was violated or complied with is going to be the actual record, and if it's gone, there's no way to prove what happened.' And Liz Wagenseller, head of the Office of Open Records, said there are no penalties if a record is 'inappropriately deleted before the Right-to-Know request was made,' the Capital-Star reported. There are obvious complications when it comes to changing this state of affairs. For one thing, it's hard to know if and when officials are using these apps at all, let alone whether they're discussing official business on them. (The U.S. officials' discussion of Yemen strike plans on Signal might never have come to public light if a participant hadn't accidentally included a journalist in the group chat.) But any electronic discussion of official business must be done in a format that can be preserved for the required length of time for public disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law. State lawmakers should explore ways to ensure that happens in Pennsylvania.
Yahoo
25-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Self-deleting message apps confound Pa.'s public access law, Senate panel hears
The exterior of the Pennsylvania state Capitol. (Photo by Amanda Mustard for the Pennsylvania Capital-Star). When government officials do the public's business using apps that automatically erase their messages, transparency and accountability take a hit, open records advocates told Pennsylvania lawmakers Monday. They called on members of the Senate Intergovernmental Operations Committee to consider legislation to address the use of platforms like Signal and SnapChat, to ensure they can't be used as an end run around the state's public access laws. Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law requires the deliberation of public business to take place in public with ample notice. Even a simple majority of a school board or borough council discussing business triggers the law's requirements. Since its debut in 2008, state courts have interpreted the Right-to-Know Law, which provides access to public records, to accommodate evolution in the way public officials use technology. Emails and other messages, even on officials' personal accounts and devices, can be public records under the law. 'The courts have said it doesn't matter where you're conducting agency business,' Liz Wagenseller, executive director of the Office of Open Records. 'It could be a Facebook message. It could be a LinkedIn message. It could be a YouTube video. If you're conducting agency business, it may be subject to the Right-to-Know Law.' But the first consideration when the Office of Open Records hears an appeal by a member of the public is whether the record they're seeking exists. 'The Right-to-Know Law is silent on whether or not a record should exist. There are no penalties or admonishments if there's a record that was inappropriately deleted before the right to know request was made,' Wagenseller said, noting that officials could face penalties if they act in bad faith to conceal a record. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE And while the state Historical Commission publishes guidelines on how long municipalities, counties and other government agencies should preserve records, they're not always closely followed, Frank Mazza, director of government relations for the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, said. The manuals are hundreds of pages long, he said. 'If you're a public official, as you probably all well know, you have a million other things rolling through your mind and understanding what your responsibilities are on page 92 of the record retention policy related to county airports isn't always at the front of mind,' Mazza said. He added that his group provides training and encourages officials to seek advice when in doubt. Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said journalists have increasingly encountered situations where officials used apps such as Signal – known as ephemeral messaging in legal circles – to make decisions. 'That's obviously a violation of the law, but just as importantly, it erodes the public trust,' Melewsky said. In written testimony to the court, Melewsky cited cases in Bucks County and Pittsburgh where public officials used Signal. Claims that they violated the Sunshine Act and Right-to-Know Law followed. 'Oftentimes the best evidence of whether the law was violated or complied with is going to be the actual record, and if it's gone, there's no way to prove what happened,' she said. Committee Chairman Jarett Coleman (R-Lehigh) noted the Broad + Liberty reported earlier this month that an attorney for the Shapiro administration said in court that emails from a cabinet secretary who resigned amid scandal had been deleted before retention policies said they could be. Pennsylvania isn't alone in grappling with the conflict between ephemeral messaging and public access. In Missouri, a court found in 2022 former Gov. Eric Greitens and his staff had not violated the law by using a 'self-destructing messaging' app prior to his administration adopting a policy to ban the use of such apps. Joshua Bonn, a Harrisburg lawyer specializing in government transparency, said Pennsylvania laws afford public officials some discretion on whether messages can be deleted or need to be preserved. He used the example of a township manager texting about an issue on a road as a 'transitory message' that an employee may determine doesn't need to be preserved. 'The history is that there have, time and time again, been reports of public officials who have deleted messages that are later determined to be public records,' Bonn said. 'If you want to preserve public records, there needs to be some sort of direction from the legislature regarding how much time electronic messages need to be retained.' Sen. Vincent Hughes (R-Philadelphia) said the issue seems to be present across all levels of government. 'How do we, how do we manage all this?' he asked 'This is a lot.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Melewsky suggested the panel could look to other states for guidance on how to tackle the issue. Coleman said the committee would consider whether the Sunshine and Right-to-Know laws need to be clarified or broadened to ensure they apply consistently across all levels of government, whether more training is needed for public officials and whether the existing investigative and enforcement provisions of the law are sufficient.
