Editorial: The people have a right to know about government settlements

Legal settlements can be a locked box of information.

In September, Reuters reported Tesla settled two cases regarding California crashes involving Autopilot software weeks after a $243 million award in a Florida case. Details in the California settlements were confidential.

When it comes to a corporation, keeping details quiet can be a public relations strategy or a business decision. That makes sense. It means less bad publicity to damage stock prices or tank a product’s sales. Perhaps it cuts down on similar suits being filed.

But for a privately held company, that affects only the owners. For a publicly traded one, silence may protect the stockholders.

It is different when the case involves a government entity.

Greensburg settled a federal lawsuit with a New Jersey woman for $60,000. The suit stemmed from a 2024 criminal case in which Alyssa Wright was charged with forgery, theft and receiving stolen property in a fraudulent check scheme. Charges were dropped after Wright’s innocence was demonstrated, but not before she spent 16 days in jail.

So what does this have to do with a settlement where no one knows the details? The who, what, where, when, why and how were all spelled out in a TribLive story on Tuesday.

Yes, they were, but only because the Trib pursued the information under a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law request.

Greensburg City Council unanimously approved the settlement this month. However, the details were not released.

They should have been.

Government bodies are allowed to conduct some meetings behind closed doors for executive sessions. One of the very short list of reasons is for discussion of pending or active litigation.

But the acceptance of a settlement — something already negotiated by the lawyers — is the end of litigation.

That’s just one reason the information about a government settlement should be disclosed. The other is the money.

By agreeing to pay the $60,000, council made a commitment of taxpayer money. Yes, the expectation is that the city’s insurance company will cut that check. However, that’s a return on public investment of premiums and payments.

Also, anyone who has ever had a bill for medical care denied by an insurer after the fact knows the coverage you expect is not always the coverage you get. Penn State’s insurance company, for example, took the university to court over payment of settlements in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse cases.

The people have a right to know what is being done in their names. They definitely have a right to know how their money is spent.

And when this is something happening with a government vote, it shouldn’t require a Right-to-Know Law request.