Editorial: Subject Pitt to Right-to-Know regulations

In August 2007, former Penn State President Graham Spanier lobbied legislators to exempt his… In August 2007, former Penn State President Graham Spanier lobbied legislators to exempt his university and Pennsylvania’s three other state-related schools from the Right-to-Know Law, which grants public access to various college financial records (such as contracts, employee compensation data, receipts and vendor agreements).

“Subjecting Penn State to Right-to-Know does far more than feed the prurient interests of newspaper editors who are looking for a headline about how much Coach [Joe] Paterno makes,” Spanier testified, arguing that the bill would erode employee morale and cost the University millions of dollars. Unfortunately, Spanier won: Currently, Pitt, Penn State, Temple and Lincoln are required to disclose only certain IRS information and the salaries of their officers, directors and 25 highest-paid employees.

Now, however, both Paterno and Spanier have been ousted, and the public is clamoring for access to documents relevant to the alleged Jerry Sandusky cover-up.

Representative Eugene DePasquale (D-York County) has capitalized on this pressure; his newly introduced House bill 2051, which would subject state-related schools to more Right-to-Know regulations, has already garnered widespread, bipartisan support.

We applaud DePasquale’s efforts; his bill — and a similar Senate version, scheduled to hit the floor soon — would benefit Pitt’s community as much as Penn State’s.

Our University, as you might have noticed, has a transparency problem. Earlier this year, we reported that Pitt instituted a 2 percent budget cut across all 600 of its units, but certain department chairs didn’t even know their finances had been affected.

Under the Right-to-Know Law, we could better understand the particulars of the cut: How many employees were terminated and what services were eliminated.

Indeed, more comprehensive openness standards are long overdue. Revealing Pitt’s financial records would legitimize University tuition hikes, allow various departments to showcase sound spending measures and, most importantly, open administrators to criticism.

In much the same way scholars present their findings for external critique, Pitt could drastically improve its efficiency and integrity with public feedback.

Chancellors and presidents need not regard an open records policy with trepidation or suspicion, of course. Much less can be hidden from them, after all, when media outlets scrutinize their subordinates’ spending decisions and hiring records.

As for complaints that releasing financial data would undermine employee morale, this is simply not the case. Michelle Fryling, an IUP spokesperson, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that, to the best of her knowledge, the Right-to-Know Law hasn’t affected faculty retention.

For the above reasons, we hope this bill continues to enjoy bipartisan support, followed by swift passage — not simply because we’d like the Sandusky investigation to proceed smoothly, but also because Pitt has exploited its open-records exemption for far too long.