Dec 13, 2006 3 min read

Accountability and transparency in state government were sacrificed on the alter of legal stupidity in late November, when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed this newspaper’s lawsuit seeking access to state Rep. Larry Roberts’ taxpayer subsidized telephone bills. Just as appalling as the fact that the Legislature remains exempt from the state’s open records law – a move that keeps such information off limits to prying eyes – was the high court’s lack of a published opinion in the case. In essentially deciding to uphold the status quo when it comes to legislative records, here’s exactly what the Supreme Court had to say: “The order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED.” That’s it. A one-sentence order, with absolutely no explanation of the legal reasoning that guided the making of such an important decision.

Now you see why legal scholar Bruce Ledewitz of Duquesne University wants the state’s highest court to reform the way it does business, including a requirement that they publish opinions when deciding cases. Ledewitz is right, and his point is amply demonstrated in the Roberts case, that unpublished opinions clearly do a disservice to the democratic process. We all deserve to know the Supreme Court’s legal logic behind its decision; after all, Chief Justice Ralph Cappy and Co. angled for last year’s pay raise partly on grounds that they work so hard and possess some of the finest legal minds in the Commonwealth. Why not show us the goods, on both counts?

Contrary to what Roberts and his supportive spinmeisters would have you believe, this lawsuit was purely about bringing a higher and much-needed level of accountability to how the legislature spends your tax dollars. Had we prevailed, the decision would have been binding on all state legislators via the establishment of case law. The secrecy dike would have sprung a leak and it would only be a matter of time before informational water began cascading through, bringing with it a cleansing effect on Harrisburg.

Since their order contains no insight or justification into why telephone bills that you pay for should remain off limits, we’ll speculate that the Supreme Court was no doubt aware that they, too, are basically exempt from the state’s open records law. A ruling that legislative phone records paid for by taxpayers are open to public review might also have created a precedent whereby court phone records were similarly affected.

As a matter of principle, the citizens of Pennsylvania were the big losers in the Nov. 22 Supreme Court ruling. It upheld in principle a bizarre concept that the state Legislature doesn’t have to abide by the same open record provisions that it imposes on other government agencies. Voters should remember this in next year’s election, when Justice Thomas Saylor is up for retention and they will pick a successor to ousted Justice Russell Nigro.

As for Roberts, he rides off into the retirement sunset with a pension for 14 years of service, lifetime health care and having escaped scrutiny and the accountability that goes with it. Let’s hope his successor, reform-minded Timothy S. Mahoney, succeeds in changing that last part.

As for us, we’ll keep fighting the good fight until something gives. We started this drive for legislative accountability back in 2000, before the incendiary pay raise, and we’re not turning back now.