By Timothy Williams, President
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association

The recent report issued by the Office of Inspector General on a long-standing pattern of sexual harassment and misconduct within the ranks of the Pennsylvania State Police highlights the need for further reform of our open records laws.

If the Governor had not authorized the Inspector General’s report, Pennsylvanians may never have learned about the extensive nature of these incidents – which range from sexual harassment of State Police employees to criminal sexual assaults on women outside of the department.  Nor would we have known how poor a job the State Police did in investigating and disciplining the troopers involved.

Do we already have the right to know about these incidents?  Under Pennsylvania law, we have the right to know at least basic information about them.  Police blotters and incident reports are public records.  And court records are public, absent an order of court to the contrary.

But in this case, the real story is the failure of the State Police to adequately address the incidents and their tolerance for the extensive and serious sexual harassment and misconduct by its employees.  And under our current open records laws, the State Police is entitled to withhold much of this kind of information.

So, the State Police police themselves.  And they don’t volunteer much information on how they’re doing.

We’re not surprised, really.  A few years ago, a group of Pennsylvania newspapers audited compliance by various state and local agencies with Pennsylvania’s open records laws.  Requests for the daily log of incoming complaint calls – clearly public records – were made of 20 State Police barracks.  Police denied all 20 requests. 

This result is consistent with what we hear on this Association’s legal hotline.  Newspaper personnel report, on a regular basis, that the state police do not release even the most basic of public information.

We have a big problem.  The state police apparently pick and choose which laws to obey – both in the public records and in the criminal justice contexts.

This case highlights that the current definition of what is public under our open records laws is not sufficient.  First, the definition of what is a public record is vague and has required judicial interpretation creating a lot of inconsistencies.  Second, there is a broad exception to records relating to investigations.  And finally, there is little legal support for the release of much information on personnel issues, particularly disciplinary matters.

Some people wonder why citizens need to know about the kinds of activities described in the Inspector General’s report.  These people may think that government shouldn’t release such “private” information.

But, as history has shown, the only way to prevent these types of incidents is to shed light on them.  A good first step in this case is the Inspector General’s report.

But Pennsylvanians should not have to rely on the discretion of public officials deciding when and if to release important information.  We deserve the basic information necessary for us to evaluate the performance of our public officials.  This is especially true when the allegations involve agencies like the State Police – an agency charged with keeping us safe from harm. 

The United States Supreme Court has said over and over again that the accountability of the criminal justice system is one of the most fundamental principles in a democracy.  Well, the criminal justice system begins with the police.  And right now, the only thing that’s clear is that we have had no idea what goes on at the highest, or even the lowest, level of the State Police.

Last year, the Pennsylvania General Assembly took a big first step in open records reform by passing a comprehensive overhaul of the procedural and penalty aspects of the Right to Know Act.  Our state lawmakers must now turn their attention to the tougher job of redefining what is public, so that we can avoid another situation like the one we’re facing with the State Police

Instructions for downloading a photo to accompany this letter:

To download a high resolution tif photo of Tim Williams for publication with this letter, right click here and choose "save-as" from your browser.

A high-quality jpg of Tim Williams is also available, click here.