SHARE THIS

There was a notable item of interest at the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB) Annual Conference last month. It was West Easton’s Vexatious Requester Resolution I submitted in late May.

The PSAB, with the power of the 956 boroughs it represents, will now be urging state legislators to correct the problem of vexatious requesters, with a change to the Right To Know Law (RTKL).

In early May, West Easton Council unanimously approved a Resolution I drafted with the hope of ending abuse of the RTKL. More than one person told me I was wasting my time because we are only a small borough. Normally I might agree, but I had other plans to make it relevant throughout the state.

I sent it to the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB), asking it be added to their list of submitted resolutions, for a vote by all member boroughs in the organization.

The PSAB’s Steering Committee approved for presentation, West Easton’s Vexatious Requester Resolution No. 2019-016 to its members.

It is has now become one of PSAB’s Legislative Priorities. The PSAB  Vexatious Requester Resolution No. 2019-15 provides it their full lobbying power in both the State House and Senate.

BE IT RESOLVED, that PSAB seek legislative remedy in the current Right-to-Know Law to clarify its definitions in law, the terms “harass” and “overburden”;

and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a venue of remedy for a public body to solicit relief from the Office of Open Records, the Courts, or a designated Commission to address those who could be recognized as a “Vexatious Requester.”

I also contacted the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS), the organization that represents Townships. With 1,454 Townships throughout PA, they are also a very strong organization.

Even more lobbying power has been added with PSATS also adopting a Resolution to allow public agencies to seek relief from a vexatious requester.

The adoption of the Vexatious Requester Resolution by both Boroughs and Townships throughout the state of Pennsylvania, with their combined lobbying power, almost guarantees the appropriate House Committee will accept it for inclusion. The Committee will then muster bi-partisan support, for development of properly worded legislation.

Not surprisingly, our own vexatious requester turned to social media when she learned of my effort to repair the RTKL, attacking me with juvenile memes and claims I was attempting to end transparency in government.

Clearly, this is not the intent when one reads the actual Resolution. I have always been an advocate for government transparency. I have used the RTKL myself in seeking information from other communities, and even our own borough.

In fact, it was the previous lack of transparency in West Easton that convinced me to run for office. I first mulled over the idea in 2013, because of the problem I experienced with the lack of transparency under Kelly Gross and Tom Nodoline, but felt I was far too new a resident to attempt to make changes in a local government that good residents seemed resigned to accept, as Council meetings went barren of attendance.

However, there is a difference between seeking information for the public good and seeking information with the purpose of retaliation and harassment in order to burden a local government so it has difficulty conducting normal business.

The only ones who would be affected by a change in the RTKL that would address a vexatious requester, are those who are vexatious.

My effort was not only in response to our one resident whose threat to bury West Easton in Right To Know Requests was followed through on, but in reading about our situation happening in other communities, as well. Separate agencies bemoaned the RTKL not offering relief, but there was no attempt to organize and have the state address the problem.

Along with sending our Resolution to the PSAB and PSATS, I had previously sent an early draft to public agencies throughout the state, explaining our own situation and asking them to adopt a similar resolution, to pass on to their district representatives.

The response was only positive, with at least 100 communities contacting me directly to relay horror stories of an individual they have, often upset by a decision of their governing body, suddenly seeking related and unrelated information with an onslaught of RTK requests.

Others had a failed candidate suddenly appearing each day with a new RTK request, seeking out supposed corruption. One secretary joked that they now keep a running inventory of paper clips and everyone has to sign a receipt if they take one.

A township supervisor, however, wasn’t joking when she told me they had an individual drop off 100 RTK requests in a single day. Their horror, she said, ended fairly quickly when the bank foreclosed on the resident’s home and he went to live with out of state relatives. Lucky them.

In 6 weeks I had 61 Vexatious Requester Resolutions delivered to me, with those communities being under the impression I wanted them as a bundle package. Rather than return them, I looked up their appropriate district representatives and forwarded them on. Thankfully, the other communities just informed me they had passed our Vexatious Resolution as their own, and sent it to their representatives.

A Vexatious Requester solution to the existing RTKL will not shut down transparency of public agencies. It will not prevent those of us who seek useful information from obtaining it.

It will only place on notice, those who use the RTKL as a weapon to harass and overburden public agencies and their employees, that the agency will be afforded an opportunity to end their assault.

Tomorrow, I will let you know how one state was able to accomplish that delicate balance of providing information with that of preventing their RTKL being abused.