PennDOT's crock: Shhhhhhh! Secret!
In PennDOT's view, Pennsylvanians who'll foot the bill for additional transportation funding don't deserve to know how it would be spent — only lawmakers do.
They're finding out via a password-protected, legislative-eyes-only PennDOT website that projects road and bridge funding under both Gov. Corbett's $1.8 billion proposal and the $2.5 billion Senate-approved plan now before the House.
PennDOT asked legislators not to make public the password for the secret site and has refused Associated Press requests for the information it contains. The agency's secrecy “justification”? The spending plans are just drafts, not final.
That's absurd: All legislation is a “draft” that can change until it's passed and signed into law — and the ramifications aren't off-limits for public consideration during that process. Transportation funding should be no different.
What PennDOT's really hiding is political back-scratching: It's secretly showing lawmakers what spending they can expect in their districts, depending on how they vote. Yet it's the most urgent, most beneficial fixes and improvements, not back-room deals, that should guide transportation funding priorities — and the public has every right to a say in setting them.
PennDOT's secrecy evidences utter disdain for openness, transparency and the public's right to know. The longer it maintains that secrecy, the less trust taxpayers will have in any transportation funding package that lawmakers pass — assuming, that is, that the public still trusts Harrisburg at all.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pipeline pap: The real agenda
- Saturday essay: Waltz of the robins
- Volunteers’ contributions: Growing flowers & more in Connellsville
- The Plum sex scandal: New, sad questions
- Baltimore burns: Destruction’s culture
- Saturday essay: Grandma Nick’s stormy forecast
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- The ‘green’ ruse: Germany’s poor ‘model’
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- The Thursday wrap