The Corbett administration gives itself a headache with selective transparency
Had the Corbett administration been more transparent in responding to two environmental nonprofits' Right to Know Law request, it wouldn't have to decide whether to appeal an Office of Open Records ruling that its response was too narrow.
Earthjustice and the Sierra Club sought correspondence about proposed regulations for coal-fired power plants' emissions among Gov. Tom Corbett's office, industry groups, the Department of Environmental Protection and other agencies. The governor's office provided correspondence involving just 13 of 60 employees, Mr. Corbett not among them. The groups appealed to the Office of Open Records, which denied administration claims of exemptions, including attorney-client privilege.
The administration can turn over additional correspondence or appeal to Commonwealth Court.
Patrick Henderson, Corbett's chief of staff and energy executive, says the initial response was limited to make processing the request easier. That's proving shortsighted, as a fuller response then would have prevented the additional headaches the administration now has — and spared taxpayers the resulting additional costs.
Mr. Henderson says the environmental groups are more focused on a political agenda than on dialogue with Corbett's office. No matter the groups' leftist bent, that's an excuse, not a reason. Because the administration responded to their open-records request as it did, it's on the defensive regarding transparency instead of arguing for the merits of its proposed emissions rules — and thereby suffering a setback of its own making for its own agenda.
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.
- The Box
- Sunday pops
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- The student-loan balloon
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- China’s bank: Obama’s blunder
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess