Much ado about nothing

Remember the anguished wail the Erie Times-News sounded over Summit Township's refusal to give one of its reporter's, on the spot, a copy of its voluminous application for a $14 million grant from the Presque Isle Casino's gaming revenues to cover new infrastructure costs in the township arising from casino activities?

Well there's been a resounding silence from the Times-News since. Seems like its complaint, to quote the Avon bard, was "Much ado about nothing."

Acording to a township spokesperson, a response from the county is expected by year's end. As a reminder, here's my post on the contretemps from Oct 12, 2007, entitled "A lachrymose epistle."

The Erie Times-News mounted its sanctimonious high horse again today with yet another whiny editorial complaining about the Summit Township development authority’s entirely appropriate method of handling one of the newspaper’s reporter’s request for a copy of a voluminous application by the Presque Isle Casino in Summit Township.

The application was for a $14 million county grant to help pay for infrastructure improvements such as roadways, utilities and others necessitated by the installation of the Downs horse racetrack there. At the recent night meeting, the authority voted to forward the completed application to county officials, whose approval of the grant would be required, for their consideration and action.

Despite the newspaper’s lachrymose epistle, its highhanded approach to seeking public information from a public agency at a nighttime meeting of the agency violated all the rules of civil conduct, justifying the low esteem in which newsfolk in general, and those at the Times-News in particular, are held nowadays.[1] The prevailing news and editorial practices of the Erie Times-News indicate why.

As a newspaperman with more than 40 years experience at several newspapers in four states including, among them, The New York Times and, many years ago, The Erie Morning News, I’ve dissected today’s sophomoric Times-News editorial to demonstrate its vacuity.

Editorial: “But when Erie Times-News reporter John Guerriero, acting in the newspaper's role as public watchdog, asked to see the application, the authority said no. It refused a request to allow the public immediate access to a public document.”

Response: This is incorrect.The state law on public records, applicable to municipal subdivisions like Summit Township, provides that public agencies must allow citizens access to public records “during regular business hours.” The meeting in question was held after regular business hours. Nevertheless, the authority did not refuse the reporter’s request to see the application, In fact, the authority’s secretary offered to let him look at it. But he unreasonably insisted on having a copy given to him on the spot. In order to obtain a hard copy, he was told, he would have to submit a request in writing and, if its release were determined to be legal, he would be given a copy after paying reasonable administrative and copying costs, as provided by state law.

Editorial: “This ultimately cost the Erie Times-News $65.50 to get a copy of the document. This would cost you the same, but you can stop by the newspaper to review the document. No charge.”

Response: This is exactly what the authority did, though it wasn’t required to do so by law. It offered to allow the reporter to see the application free of charge at the night meeting. It went above and beyond the legal requirement to accommodate him.

Editorial: “It (what the the authority did) also arrogantly violates the spirit of the law.”

Response: In fact the authority’s action upheld the letter of the law and exceeded its spirit by offering to allow the reporter to see the application without charge at the night meeting, even though it wasn’t required to do so, and its staff and members were fully preoccupied with the urgent business of the meeting. Editorial: “You would no longer have to justify to a public official or bureaucrat why you wanted a public document.”

Response: In fact, existing state law prohibits an agency from asking anyone why he or she wants a copy of any public document. The authority did not ask the Times-News reporter why he wanted a copy of the application.

Editorial: “The new law would begin with the presumption that records held by public agencies are public records.”

Response: The law already ascribes to that presumption, and clearly states what the legal exceptions are to that presumption.

As a multiple award-winning investigative journalist for more than 40 years, I’ve had my battles with public agencies over the release of public information and documents. Despite legal strictures, agency personnel usually have the discretion to waive some or all of them, and can often honor a reasonable request on the spot.

I’ve found that 99 percent of the time, if a reporter approaches agency personnel in a civil manner, they will be more likely to accommodate a request without requiring one to jump through all the legal hoops.

I’ve also tussled with legislative bodies over reforms of freedom of information legislation, and have learned the hard way that it’s a losing battle. The tension between government and those seeking information in its hands will always be with us, with government always holding the upper hand. Reporters and other players seeking access to information in the hands of government and its faceless minions must learn to play by the rules as they are, because the prospects of every changing them are remote or nil.

[1] For example, a new survey from We Media and Zooby Interactive found that 72 percent of survey respondents indicated they were dissatisfied with the quality of American journalism today, primarily because of lack of trustworthiness.