Address talk of official business on self-deleting message apps
The message, delivered by open records advocates to the state Senate's Intergovernmental Operations Committee, was a necessary and timely one.
Aaron Scherb, of the government accountability group Common Cause, recently told the Baltimore Sun: 'Unfortunately, at all levels of government, whether federal, state or local, we see elected officials and government officials try to avoid public records laws and retention laws by using messaging apps and self-deleting messages.'
Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law means that officials' emails and other electronic communications can be deemed public records and subject to potential disclosure like any other type of record.
The state Office of Open Records says that the law does not distinguish between types of records, such as printed material, electronic databases, emails and so on.
Every record is subject to a two-part analysis – is it a record? That is, does it document a transaction or an activity of an agency? If so, is it a public record, or can it be withheld under the law or a court order?
But messaging apps such as Signal – which recently made headlines after U.S. government officials used it to discuss plans for airstrikes on Yemen – and Snapchat can erase users' messages after a certain period of time.
So when government officials use those apps to discuss public business, it can mean their messages are erased forever, with no way to go back later and see whether they should have been preserved for possible disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law.
The Capital-Star reported that Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, told the Senate panel: 'Oftentimes the best evidence of whether the law was violated or complied with is going to be the actual record, and if it's gone, there's no way to prove what happened.'
And Liz Wagenseller, head of the Office of Open Records, said there are no penalties if a record is 'inappropriately deleted before the Right-to-Know request was made,' the Capital-Star reported.
There are obvious complications when it comes to changing this state of affairs.
For one thing, it's hard to know if and when officials are using these apps at all, let alone whether they're discussing official business on them. (The U.S. officials' discussion of Yemen strike plans on Signal might never have come to public light if a participant hadn't accidentally included a journalist in the group chat.)
But any electronic discussion of official business must be done in a format that can be preserved for the required length of time for public disclosure under the Right-to-Know Law.
State lawmakers should explore ways to ensure that happens in Pennsylvania.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Race against time: How Congress barely made July 4 deadline on 'big, beautiful bill'
Football and basketball coaches are experts in clock management. So are lawmakers. Coaches are adept at either burning or saving just enough time on the clock to execute a play – or prevent the other team from doing so. Congressional clock management is very different. Whatever lawmakers say they will do – it will always take them a profoundly longer period of time in which to do it. That's why the temporal politics of passing President Donald Trump's "big, beautiful bill" overwhelmed everyone who works on Capitol Hill over the past few weeks. That ranges from the lawmakers themselves to the aides, journalists, Capitol custodians and U.S. Capitol Police officers. To wit: Congressional Republicans have churned through variations of frameworks and iterations of the big, beautiful bill since February. But things finally got serious when the House adopted its formal version of the package on May 22, beating the Memorial Day goal by four days. There was chatter that the Senate would tackle the House's package the week of June 9. Then that fell to the week of June 15. The idea was that the Senate would process its version of the bill that week and then allow the House to sync up during the week of June 22. Then those hopes were dashed. That's to say nothing of the Senate at least voting to proceed to even start debate at the very end of the week of June 15. Here's what really happened. And it underscores just how protracted the process can be on Capitol Hill, especially with a very complicated and controversial piece of legislation. On Monday, June 23, Republican senators talked about taking a procedural vote to launch debate on the big, beautiful bill as early as Wednesday or Thursday, June 25 or 26. Such a vote would require just 51 yeas. But the bill wasn't ready. Republicans were still crafting and drafting the bill to comport with Senate budget rules. The GOP also aimed to write the legislation in a fashion to court 51 yeas to crack the procedural hurdle and formally start debate. Midweek came and the Senate never took a procedural vote. Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Thom Tillis, R-N.C., opposed starting debate on a bill that was not complete. So midweek morphed into the weekend, and when the Senate convened on Saturday, June 28, Fox News was told the chamber would take a procedural vote to begin debate around 4 p.m. ET. Well, you guessed it. The Senate did not trigger that vote until 7:31 p.m. Saturday. And the 15-minute vote turned into a three-hour and 38-minute affair. The Senate closed the vote at 11:09 p.m. Saturday – with Vice President JD Vance nearby in case his services were necessary to break a tie. They were not. At least not on the dais. But Vance played a pivotal role in negotiating with Johnson, Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., and others to greenlight the Senate starting on the bill. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., then compelled Senate clerks to read the entire 940-page bill out loud from the dais. That enterprise consumed just under 16 hours of floor time. The clerks – their voices cracking and hoarse – concluded a few minutes after 3 p.m. on Sunday. This marked the first time a senator required the clerks to verbally read a bill before the Senate since 2021. So, once the clerks concluded their oratory, it was believed that the Senate might go all night with its marathon voting session – known as a "vote-a-rama" – and try to finish the bill sometime by dawn Monday. But this is Congress time. Senators didn't even begin the vote-a-rama until 9:40 am Monday. Twelve hours later, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., suggested it was time to "start figuring out" a final group of amendments that were necessary to conclude the bill. Some groaned at that notion. One senator told Fox News that 12 hours later was a little late in the game to "start figuring out" something of that magnitude. The Senate then toiled throughout the night Monday and into Tuesday. Thune and the GOP leadership finally cut a deal with Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, on rural hospitals to marshal her vote. The Senate approved the bill late Tuesday morning after an all-night session. Vance was back to break the tie in what is called a "Van Halen" vote. The tally was 50-50 since three GOP senators defected. But Vance's vote in favor made the roll call "51-50." For those who are uninitiated in the Van Halen discography, "5150" was Van Halen's first album with new lead singer Sammy Hagar, supplanting David Lee Roth. It went to No. 1 on the Billboard charts. Then, it was on to the House. The House Rules Committee serves as a gateway for legislation to head to the floor. It convened a meeting early Tuesday afternoon. The Senate would soon send its revamped version of the big, beautiful bill across the Capitol Dome for the House to align. The Rules Committee then proceeded to meet until around 1 a.m. Wednesday, prepping the bill for the floor. That meant the House could vote by late Wednesday afternoon. But there was a problem. House GOP leaders discovered what they termed a "technical error" in the rule. The entire House must first approve the rule before debating legislation on the floor. So the House needed to vote on the fix first. That vote started early Wednesday afternoon – and continued for another seven hours and 31 minutes. That established a record for the longest roll call vote in House history, topping a vote of seven hours and 21 minutes in 2021. Some Republicans weren't at the Capitol. But they held the vote open to buy time to work on skeptical GOP members who may be holdouts. And around 9:30 p.m. Wednesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., decided to double-dog dare anyone who was against the bill to put their voting card where their mouth was. Republican leaders closed the "technical correction" vote and proceeded to a vote on the "rule." If the House adopted the rule, it could formally debate the bill. The House was stuck if its members failed to approve the rule. The tally board behind the dais in the House chamber populated relatively quickly. All 216 Democrats said no There were also four GOP no votes – and several who refused to vote yes. Republicans could only lose three votes and still pass the rule. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., was a yes on the rule – even though he opposed the bill. He then switched to no as the vote dragged on. However, Massie ultimately supported the rule in the end. Reps. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind., Keith Self, R-Texas, Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., and Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., were no votes throughout the vote. But around 1 a.m., there was movement. The holdouts and some of those who voted no met with Johnson and other GOP leaders. That seemed to pry loose the votes of the holdouts and opponents – except Fitzpatrick. But there was a problem. Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa. – who had not voted – drove home to Pennsylvania. So everyone at the Capitol patiently waited for Perry to return. He did around 3:30 a.m. Thursday. Everyone but Fitzpatrick voted as a bloc in favor of the rule. The House had the votes to begin debate on the rule. It looked as though the House might vote around daybreak on the actual bill itself. But the office of House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., had told Fox News on Wednesday that Jeffries intended to speak for an hour or so at the end of debate. There's a custom in the House where top leaders of both parties are yielded "a minute" to speak on the floor. But this is a "magic minute." As a courtesy to those leaders, they speak as long as they want. Jeffries began speaking just before 5 a.m. Thursday – and finally concluded eight hours and 45 minutes later just after 1:30 p.m. ET Thursday. Jeffries shattered the mark of eight hours and 32 minutes established by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in 2021. McCarthy set the record as minority leader. So those House members hoping to hop an early morning flight and get home for July 4 would have to wait. Mike Johnson didn't speak nearly as long as Jeffries. But he did observe that the late President Ronald Reagan once said that no speech should run longer than 20 minutes. Johnson spoke for 23 minutes. And then the House voted, finally passing the bill 218-214 at 2:31 p.m. Thursday. Fitzpatrick and Massie were the only GOP noes. It is said that we never have enough time in life. And if you work on Capitol Hill, you'll probably have even less thanks to congressional clock management.
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
For the sake of his party and country, Schumer should step aside
Halfway through 2025, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is the embodiment of the kind of leader that his party's base clearly does not want. A new Reuters-Ipsos poll found that 62 percent of self-identified Democrats agreed that 'the leadership of the Democratic Party should be replaced with new people.' And key findings from that survey indicate that Schumer is the party's most out-of-step leader. The poll showed that a large majority of Democrats want elected officials to reduce 'corporate influence,' while a whopping 86 percent 'said changing the federal tax code so wealthy Americans and large corporations pay more in taxes should be a priority.' But Schumer's record is the epitome of corporate influence. For decades, he has given priority to protecting the financial interests of the wealthy and of large corporations. Schumer vowed not to step aside after he infuriated the vast bulk of congressional Democrats with his vote for President Trump's spending bill in March. That vote also incensed grassroots Democrats across the country, to the point that he felt compelled to abruptly call off an imminent, long-planned publicity tour for his new book that month. In effect, Schumer has become persona non grata among his party's voters in many blue states. More than three months after his 'postponed' book tour, it has not been rescheduled — the Senate's top Democrat is evidently wary of photo ops of protests against him by Democrats around the country. He remains the top Democrat in the Senate at a time when he is deeply unpopular among voters eager for leadership to put up a fight against the Trump administration. If Senate Democrats are serious about reversing their party's tailspin and improving its public image, they should insist on ending Schumer's stint as minority leader. It is time for Democratic colleagues to put their foot down instead of deferring to New York's senior senator. Schumer's behavior stands in sharp contrast to the example set by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). When Democrats lost control of the House in January 2023, causing Pelosi to lose the Speaker's gavel, she could have taken the post of minority leader but instead chose to step aside. But when Democrats lost control of the Senate in early January of this year, dislodging Schumer as majority leader, he chose to become minority leader. Now, by clinging to that post, Schumer is damaging the party's ability to rebound from its setbacks last fall and its current abysmal approval ratings. Schumer's unwelcome nickname — 'the senator from Wall Street' — is longstanding and well-earned. He reached new heights as corporate America's champion on Capitol Hill during the 2008 financial crisis, when he 'became one of the first officials to promote a Wall Street bailout,' as reported by The New York Times. Schumer was playing 'an unrivaled role in Washington as beneficiary, advocate and overseer of an industry that is his hometown's most important business.' By fall 2009, more than 15 percent of the year's contributions from Wall Street to all senators had gone to Schumer himself. Schumer has since remained closely aligned with the very corporate interests that most Democratic voters don't want party leaders to serve. Meanwhile, sectors such as banking, real estate, finance and the tobacco industry have sent floods of appreciative donations into Schumer's campaign coffers. At the end of 2024, Schumer's campaign committee reported a six-year donor haul of nearly $43 million. More than one-quarter of that total came just from securities and investment companies, real estate interests, law firms and lawyers. While those patrons and other major backers are presumably happy with Schumer's capacity to sway legislation, many of his own constituents want him out of Senate leadership. A Marist poll in April found that 53 percent of New Yorkers think he should relinquish his minority leader position. Here is how the grassroots pro-Democratic group Pass the Torch described him earlier this year: 'Chuck Schumer is unwilling and unable to meet the moment. His sole job is to fight MAGA's fascist takeover of our democracy — instead, he's directly enabling it. Americans desperately need a real opposition party to stand up to Trump.' Schumer is the most powerful symbol of how the current Democratic Party has lost touch with its base of voters who will be crucial for making gains in the midterm election next year and recapturing the White House in 2028. Continuing to enshrine him as the biggest spokesperson for Senate Democrats is a way of telling voters that catering to the personal ambition of a timeworn politician is a higher priority than being responsive to the party's constituents. Every two years, we hear how the results of federal elections will hinge on turnout. Yet the fact that Schumer remains entrenched as the top Democrat in the Senate indicates that the party is willing to depress its voter turnout rather than shake up its power structure in Congress. As long as the likes of Schumer are running the Democratic show on Capitol Hill, the party of Trump has little to worry about. Norman Solomon is cofounder of RootsAction and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His book 'War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine' was published in 2023.
Politico
4 hours ago
- Politico
Republicans just cut Medicaid. Will it cost them control of Congress?
'The other side is going to use Medicaid as an issue,' he said, even as he voted for the megabill. 'And I think the Senate [version of the bill] gives them a little more leverage to do so.' Republicans are walking a tightrope as they return to their districts to start selling the sweeping policy package. They're going to lean into the megabill's popular provisions, like eliminating taxes on tips, while trying to escape unpopular reductions to safety-net programs. The final bill slashes spending by $1.7 trillion. Voters broadly dislike the megabill; some recent polling shows a 2-to-1 margin of disapproval, according to surveys conducted by Quinnipiac University , The Washington Post , Pew Research and Fox News . Nearly half of voters want more federal funding for Medicaid, while just 10 percent want less, according to Quinnipiac. 'What we know from past elections is that messing with people's healthcare coverage is very problematic for politicians. And it has, in the past, yielded some very, very negative views about the people who supported it,' said Republican pollster Whit Ayres. Meanwhile Democrats are rushing to capitalize on the controversy and plan to make it a centerpiece of their midterm messaging . House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries spoke on the floor for eight hours and 45 minutes, reading letters from constituents of vulnerable GOP lawmakers who could lose access to both programs. Democratic candidates followed up with post-vote statements blasting the Republicans they're looking to unseat for effectively kicking people in their districts off their health care plans. Their campaign arms and allied super PACs have already released several rounds of ads hammering vulnerable Republicans and say they plan to keep up the pace. Republicans are trying to figure out how to fight back. Their early salvos have focused on painting Democrats as supportive of tax hikes since they opposed a bill that would extend Trump's 2017 tax cuts and eliminate federal taxes on tips and overtime. Republicans also argue they're protecting the 'most vulnerable' Medicaid recipients by removing undocumented immigrants and others they say shouldn't have access to the program anyway. But in a tacit acknowledgment of the potential electoral fallout, some Republicans have pledged to try to reverse provisions such as the provider tax drawdown before they take effect in 2028. 'To the extent that there's reform, and … you can legitimately argue it's the waste, fraud, abuse, that's a good position to be in,' said Rep. Russ Fulcher (R-Idaho). 'If it's just strictly a situation where you say, 'We're just cutting and spending' and it's not cognizant as to how and where, that's where we get into trouble.'
