Adjust Text Size
For Immediate Release
August 11, 2011
Contact: David Atkinson
717-787-6535
 

Putting Enforcement Power Behind Open Government Requirements 
by State Senator Lloyd Smucker

In terms of state issues, a lot of legislative focus has been on dealing with the four Es – economy, education, environment, and energy.  Still, as the letters and e-mails coming in reflect, public interest in action on reform measures has not in any way diminished.

I am pleased to report that a reform measure long sought by good government advocates was recently signed into law.  Senate Bill 101, which I sponsored, increases the penalties for intentional violations of the state Sunshine Law.  It is now Act 56.

The state Sunshine Law requires that most meetings held by state and local government agencies be open to the public.  Proper notice of meetings must be published.  This law guarantees citizens the right to see the decisionmaking process, and to comment on matters of concern to them in a public setting.

Since the modern Sunshine Law took effect in 1987, the chief criticism has been the lack of meaningful penalties for violations.  For the past twenty-five years, the maximum fine was $100, no matter how serious the violation, and no matter how much improperly-decided matters cost taxpayers.

An unfortunate situation in Lancaster County, involving a flagrant violation of the law and a consequent grand jury report, provided needed momentum for legislation.  The Lancaster newspapers and other commentators across the state chipped in urging corrective action.

The approach is simple, embracing the grand jury recommendation.  The new law sets a maximum fine of $1000 for a first offense, and $2000 for a second offense.  Taxpayer dollars cannot be used to pay fines directly or to reimburse fine payments.  As a practical matter, a public official who is found guilty of intentionally violating the Sunshine Law and who is hit with a fine is going to be in serious trouble with his or her constituents.

The real advantage of this change is that it should increase good faith compliance with open meeting requirements.  Many suspected violations stem from creative justifications for closed-door sessions.  Sometimes officials just outright defy the law.  The combination of stricter enforcement and meaningful fines should work to discourage the intentional violations.

Credit for this success is also due to my predecessor, Gib Armstrong, who first introduced similar legislation in 2007.  We have now achieved the right result for the public interest.  There is satisfaction in having a significant reform as my first bill signed into law.