Pennsylvania Senate Bill SB657

Pennsylvania 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/3/23
• Refer: 5/3/23

Caption

In preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions; in requirements and prohibitions, providing for Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association; in access, further providing for open-records officer, for appeals officer, for regulations and policies, for requests and for retention of records; in procedure, further providing for requests, for written requests, for electronic access, for creation of record, for production of certain records and for exceptions for public records; in agency response, further providing for general rule and for extension of time; in appeal of agency determination, further providing for filing of appeal and for appeals officers; in judicial review, further providing for civil penalty and for Office of Open Records; and, in miscellaneous provisions, further providing for relation to other laws.

Impact

If enacted, SB657 would have significant implications for state laws related to public access to information. It would bolster the enforcement of transparency practices by introducing stricter timelines for responses to records requests and requiring agencies to adhere to newly established guidelines. The modifications to the existing law also aim to clarify the responsibilities of different governmental entities, particularly local agencies and the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, thereby increasing accountability. Furthermore, it enhances penalties for agencies that deny access to records in bad faith, promoting a culture of compliance with open records standards.

Summary

Senate Bill 657 seeks to amend the Right-to-Know Law in Pennsylvania, enhancing provisions concerning public access to public records. The bill introduces changes in definitions related to independent and local agencies and addresses the roles of open-records officers and appeals officers in responding to information requests. Notably, it seeks to formalize and strengthen the operations of the Office of Open Records, which is tasked with ensuring compliance with public access laws and providing necessary administrative and legal support for record requests. SB657 also outlines the requirements for public entities to maintain transparency and provide timely responses to requests for records.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB657 is generally supportive among advocates for transparency and good governance. Proponents argue that the amendments will facilitate greater public access to information and deter governmental opacity. However, some parties raise concerns regarding the balance between public access to records and the protection of sensitive information, particularly personal financial data. The debate reflects ongoing tensions surrounding state-level transparency and the rights of citizens to access governmental information, often echoing broader dialogues about privacy and accountability in government operations.

Contention

A key point of contention in discussions around SB657 revolves around the balance of public access to records versus the need for privacy protection. Critics of the bill have raised valid apprehensions that the rapid push for transparency might compromise the security of sensitive personal information, particularly regarding laws that safeguard individual privacy. The inclusion of provisions that classify certain records as exempt highlights the complex nature of formulating policies that adequately address both transparency and privacy concerns, underscoring the necessity for ongoing dialogue among stakeholders to find a workable balance.