NEW CASTLE —
We suppose we should point out the obvious at the beginning of this editorial.
We strongly support the concept of open records in Pennsylvania. As a newspaper, we understand the need to defend the public’s right to know what’s happening within government, and are painfully aware of assorted mechanisms employed to keep citizens in the dark.
So we are inclined to support court decisions that serve to beef up Pennsylvania’s Open Records Act. This week, one such state Supreme Court decision came down that’s worthy of note.
Basically, the ruling determined that the home addresses of individuals contained in government records are public. That may strike some people as an odd point of contention, and in most cases, it probably is.
But this particular ruling may have far-reaching consequences, and may lead to further challenges from people who think the state’s open records law infringes upon privacy. They may have a point in theory, but in practice there’s probably not much in terms of real privacy to protect here.
The case before the Supreme Court involved Mel Marin, a Mercer County political candidate who refused to put his address on campaign documents, citing privacy concerns and fearing for his personal safety.
We would suggest any candidate who worries about informing potential constituents were he lives probably should look for something else to do. But when the matter reached the Supreme Court, the only real question was whether the Open Records Act required the public release of candidate addresses.
The Supreme Court said it did, affirming a Commonwealth Court decision that noted the law allows only a handful of exceptions, candidates for public office not being among them.
The ruling, however, may not be the end of the story. The Pennsylvania Education Association and the Pennsylvania School Boards Association have indicated they view the ruling as limited in scope. The two organizations are fighting an open records effort to have the home addresses of teachers made public.
Their argument appears to be that there is no public purpose in identifying where teachers live. And indeed, it’s not the sort of information that’s likely to be routinely pertinent.
Yet we could envision instances of taxpayers arguing public employees should live in the districts where they work. Documenting residences would be a factor.
But it’s worth noting the court decision in this matter cited the fact the names and addresses of individuals tend to be relatively easy to find with the help of the Internet and other sources. Protecting the privacy of something that’s already in the public domain makes little sense.
Editorials
Our Opinion: Court decision advances the public’s right to know
- Editorials
-
-
Our Opinion: State audit says city school district failed to collect from non-residents
Audit information about non-resident students who didn’t pay tuition at New Castle raises more questions than it answers. At least so far. We expect more details when the Pennsylvania auditor general’s office completes its report and the New Castle school district provides its response.
-
Our Opinion: Make the most of your power to vote by casting ballot tomorrow
So what kind of turnout will there be for tomorrow’s primary? Recent history suggests somewhere between low and lousy. This year’s elections are devoted to local races, and there are few major ones being contested in the primary.
-
Our Opinion: Privatization of county jail is worthy of examination
Generally speaking, we support government efforts to seek more efficient ways to provide essential services. So we have no problem with the decision by the Lawrence County commissioners to solicit proposals for the private operation of the county jail.
-
Our Opinion: We endorse candidates for New Castle board
The New Castle school district is often a study in contrasts. There are complaints about the district on everything from taxes to nepotism, from test scores to ethical slights. Yet at the same time, plenty of students within the district excel. It’s a tribute to the hard work of those students, their families and the educators who support them.
-
Our Opinion: You should be frightened, outraged by IRS abuse of power
When people talk about government posing a threat to citizens, a common topic these days is unmanned drones. But a more credible threat may be the Internal Revenue Service. This agency, responsible for collecting taxes and enforcing related rules, has the ability to make life miserable for the average individual.
-
Our Opinion: Our endorsements for City Council race
The city of New Castle needs help. Financially distressed and operating under Pennsylvania’s Act 47, New Castle must find ways to reverse its population loss and fiscal challenges.
-
Our Opinion: Court frowns on gerrymandering, but only slightly
Pennsylvania legislators have received the green light to put their own political interests ahead of yours. That’s a key point in the latest Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on legislative apportionment in the commonwealth.
-
Our Opinion: Study says distracted driving deaths are under reported
Suppose you operated a piece of heavy machinery at your job. And suppose it’s machinery that moves quickly with little effort. What would happen if you decided to take one hand off that equipment — while it was still in motion — and instead focused your attention on a telephone call?
-
Our Opinion: Senate seeks to give states more taxing power
Congress is taking a stab at tax fairness. At least, where states are concerned. If you’re looking for meaningful reform of the federal tax code, that’s going to have to wait.
-
Our Opinion: Look at handling of bombing suspects is warranted
We welcome an investigation into the handling of intelligence related to suspects in the Boston Marathon bombing. That probe may reveal little of value.
- More Editorials Headlines
-
Our Opinion: State audit says city school district failed to collect from non-residents
