Published: August 10, 2007 02:45 pm      

Open records: One step forward, one step back

Even as Pennsylvania residents were winning a small victory in the name of access, an effort by a national lawyers group threatens to create another roadblock to open records.

It seems for every small victory we see on the issue of transparency, we also see a potential setback.

State Transportation Secretary Allen Biehler recently reversed a decision to release information on Pennsylvania’s bridges in the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse. At first, Biehler planned to keep data on safety issues away from the public because he didn’t want people unnecessarily fearful that bridges they use were in danger of an imminent collapse.

“I’m not going to change my driving habits,” Biehler said.

That same option, newspapers argued, should be available to the public. Let people read the reports and choose for themselves.

Biehler, under pressure from the media and some legislators, eventually changed his mind. That was the right decision.

People can react as they see fit to information in the report, such as:

n Pennsylvania has about 25,000 state-owned bridges, and of them nearly 6,000 are considered “structurally deficient.” That means those bridges are in need of some level of repair.

n There are 54 truss bridges - similar to the design of the bridge in Minnesota - and they are all now undergoing inspections.

n Of the state-owned bridges, about 800 have weight or lane restrictions; 54 are closed.

n Some of those bridges with deficiencies are in Cambria and Somerset counties.

“Releasing the rating information does not change the fact that our bridges are safe,” Biehler said. “I can assure you that I will not hesitate to cross a bridge with a low rating. I’m going to use common sense, adhere to the warning signs if bridges are posted and not hesitate to cross any of our bridges that are open to traffic.”

Fair enough.

And armed with the same information, individuals can decide where to drive, and perhaps ask questions of their local officials.

But not all news is good on the issue of access.

A national lawyers group is considering a resolution urging governments to restrict access to some criminal records which are now open to the public.

The American Bar Association will consider this week a resolution that would affect access to paperwork on cases where charges were dismissed or not pursued for some reason, cases where a ruling was reversed, or where a guilty plea was rejected.

Additionally, the resolution would urge government agencies such as the police or courts to close records of those convicted of misdemeanors or felonies if the individual has made it through “a specified period of law-abiding conduct, which may vary depending upon the seriousness of the offense.” The exceptions would be cases involving “substantial violence, large scale drug trafficking, or conduct of equivalent gravity,” the resolution says.

We appreciate an attorney’s wishes to protect her or his clients from undue scru-tiny. And we agree that those found not guilty of a crime ought not be treated as if they had been convicted.

However, by closing those records - even after “a specified period of law-abiding conduct” - we would be denying the public the opportunity to have complete information about individuals or incidents and to make decisions accordingly. That would include potential neighbors or employers. That could even include voters, if an individual eventually ran for public office.

Supporters say the resolution would give those charged with crimes, and even those convicted of crimes, a better chance of getting on with their lives.

That is fine, provided getting on with their lives does not mean moving into a position for a recurrence of illegal activity. Or moving into a position of influence that would have been unavailable to them if the public knew more about that person’s past.

People have the right to know with whom they’re coming in contact - even those who have faced charges without being convicted.

This is yet another chapter in the ongoing struggle to make or keep information available to the public.