Before the current sex abuse scandal that brought down legendary Penn State football coach Joe Paterno, the last time I wrote about JoePa was in December 2007 when there was a controversy about keeping his salary secret. The Associated Press reported on Monday that Paterno is eligible for a $554,000 annual pension based on his most recent salary as PSU's head football coach.

Here's a look back at the 2007 column:

Why revealing Joe Paterno's salary is important

By Tony Phyrillas

Pennsylvania ranks 49 out of 50 states for having the worst open-records law in the country. The Paterno salary story, which made the front page of every newspaper in the state, should be a wake-up call to Pennsylvania residents.

The world now knows how much Joe Paterno makes as head football coach of the Penn State Nittany Lions.

My life hasn't changed one bit since I found out that Paterno earns $512,664 a year. I graduated from Penn State but it never occurred to me to ask how much Paterno made when I attended school in State College or in the years since I left Happy Valley.

I never gave any thought to Paterno's salary until I learned that a newspaper had been trying for five years to get the information.

Paterno's salary was one of the best-kept secrets in Pennsylvania, a state where keeping the public in the dark is one of the primary missions of government. Pennsylvania ranks 49 out of 50 states for having the worst open-records law in the country.

The State Employees' Retirement System released Paterno's salary a week after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that his salary and those of other top Penn State officials are public information.

How much the 80-year-old coach makes isn't as important as the fact that so many government and university officials worked so hard for so long to keep the information out of public sight.

The revelation that Paterno makes $512,000 was almost anti-climatic. Most people were under the impression that Paterno was making more than $1 million a year based on his longevity at Penn State and the success he has brought to the school's football program.

"I'm paid well. I'm not overpaid," Paterno told reporters. "I got all the money I need."

What a refreshing statement from a public figure in a state where greed has become the norm. Pennsylvania legislators, already among the highest paid in the country, voted themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 54 percent during a middle-of-the-night session on July 7, 2005. Gov. Ed Rendell signed the pay grab into law. It took a backlash from Pennsylvania residents to get the Legislature to rescind the pay raise.

And let's not compare Paterno's salary to that of some other coaches who run big-time football programs. Alabama's Nick Saban is the highest paid coach at $4 million per year. Oklahoma's Bob Stoops makes over $3 million. Florida's Urban Meyer, Ohio State's Jim Tressel and South Carolina's Steve Spurrier make $2 million annually.

Paterno, the second winningest college football coach of all time, is underpaid compared to other coaches. Paterno is Penn State. His value to the school cannot be measured in dollars and cents. And let's not forget that Paterno and his wife have donated $4 million to Penn State over the years.

I don't think anyone can argue that Paterno isn't worth every dollar Penn State pays him. The salary revelation should put renewed focus on the current debate in the Pennsylvania Legislature over open records.

The reason the Harrisburg Patriot-News had to fight so hard in the courts to get the salary information is because Pennsylvania law presumes that all government and quasi-government agencies are entitled to keep secrets.

The public, through newspapers and other media outlets, have to persuade courts that the information should be public. This presumption is backwards. The burden should be on the government to show why information associated with how it spends the public's money or conducts the public's business should be kept from the public.

Political commentator Lowman Henry has an interesting take on the Paterno salary disclosure:

"Why then would Penn State's power brokers fight so hard to keep such information confidential? In a word: arrogance. It has become apparent they simply believe, despite the fact PSU receives hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, We The People have no right to know what they are doing with our money. Clearly the Paterno salary is not untoward, and the university is generally perceived as one of the finest in the nation. Why then the secrecy?"

The Paterno salary story, which made the front page of every newspaper in the state, should be a wake-up call to Pennsylvania residents. They need to be engaged in the current debate about revising the state's open-records laws. This is not about giving newspapers special access. This is about giving the people of Pennsylvania the right to know how their elected officials are conducting the people's business.

A vote on revisions to the open-records law could come any day now. Make sure your elected representatives know you're paying attention and will not tolerate any more secrecy.

From a recent editorial in The Mercury about attempts to exempt certain coroner records from public scrutiny:

THORNS to the state Senate for considering eliminating public access to coroner records, a move that would set back progress toward open records in Pennsylvania. Senate Bill 961 would eliminate public access to virtually all coroner records. Instead of a full report on the cause of a suspicious death released in a timely fashion, it would require only the release of the name, cause and manner of death and even then it would become public only 30 days after the calendar year in which a death occurs. The coroner's office plays an important role for the public and the criminal justice system by providing an independent and timely investigation into deaths of questionable circumstances such as homicides, suicides, accidental and often sudden and unexplained deaths. There is no question that everyone involved in the process of someone's death, including the media, needs to be sensitive, but complete information about suspicious deaths is critical. This is a bill that should not move forward.

From an editorial in The Mercury:

Senate Bill 101 increases the fines that may be imposed on elected officials who participate in a meeting with the intent of violating the open meeting requirements.

The fine, which was previously a flat rate of $100, was raised to as much as $1,000 for a first offense and $500 to $2,000 for a second offense. The mandate is set to take effect in 60 days.

The increased penalties for violating state sunshine laws were long overdue.

Pennsylvania has been known to be among the most antiquated states in the nation in its laws on open meetings and open records — a standing that was improved somewhat with the passage of open records reform several years ago.

Read the full editorial at the link below:

New law puts teeth into state sunshine laws - pottsmerc.com

Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner, the state's top elected Democrat, on efforts by the state Legislature to change the law requiring government bodies to publish legal notices in newspapers

House Bill 633, if enacted, would be another setback in making government more open and accountable to the public. Citizens interested in reviewing public notices would have to visit multiple websites to obtain the information they are seeking. This is not convenient and will decrease, rather than increase, bidding competition. In short, it's a bad deal for taxpayers.

Read Wagner's full op-ed at the link below:

Auditor general: Keep public notices in newspapers - The York Daily Record

Keeping notices in print is important for public right to know - pottsmerc.com

Read more about efforts to save jobs and keep the public informed here.

Local and county government officials as well as school boards want to change the Pennsylvania law that requires them to publish legal notices of upcoming meetings in newspapers. They want to post meeting information on their respective websites instead.

In addition to keeping taxpayers in the dark about important decisions, House Bill 633 would also cost 1,000 jobs in Pennsylvania.

Tell your state lawmaker to vote no on HB 633.

1,000 jobs hang in balance under PA publication proposal (video) - pottsmerc.com

Editorial: Legal notices belong in newspapers - pottsmerc.com

School notices plan: Curbing right to know in the guise of thrift - pottsmerc.com

Pennsylvania lawmakers want to keep citizens in the dark. Don't let them get away with it. It's your money. It's your government. Demand accountability. Demand transparency.

Legislators target Right to Know - Washington Greene PA Editorial Opinion - www.observer-reporter.com

From the office of Montgomery County state Rep. Mike Vereb:

COLLEGEVILLE — Rep. Mike Vereb (R-Montgomery) encourages residents of the 150th Legislative District to attend his Government Reform Forum on Tuesday, June 1, at Ursinus College.

"When I was first elected to the House in 2006, it was on wave of voter outrage over the way things were being done in Harrisburg," Vereb said. "As a member of the Speaker’s Reform Commission last session, I worked hard to reform government operations and make state government more transparent. However, there is still much to be done. This forum will provide constituents with a chance to have an open dialogue with our panel to discuss what's next for the reform movement in Harrisburg and throughout the state. I encourage my constituents to come to the forum and let their ideas and opinions be heard."

A panel of local and county government officials, as well as news reporters who cover the different levels of government, will be on hand to give their view on what government reforms need to be enacted and to answer questions from the audience.

The evening's panelists include: Risa Vetri Ferman, Montgomery County district attorney; Jenny Brown, Lower Merion township commissioner; Stan Huskey, Norristown Times-Herald editor; Tony Phyrillas, Pottstown Mercury city editor; Alex Roarty, PoliticsPA correspondent; and Chris Freind, an independent columnist and investigative reporter based in Philadelphia.

This is an interactive event, with residents encouraged to submit questions for the panelists throughout the evening. Residents who are unable to attend are invited to submit questions for the panelists via Rep. Vereb's Web site, www.RepVereb.com

The event will take place from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Guest should use the Ninth Avenue entrance to enter the Ursinus College campus. Signs will be displayed throughout the campus to direct residents to Kaleidoscope Hall.

Four Pennsylvania government Web sites were named winners of the "Sunny Award" today, marking them as some of the best state and local government Websites for transparency by Sunshine Review, a pro transparency organization.

The Pennsylvania winners are Avon Grove School District, Brandywine Heights Area School District, Philadelphia County and the state Web site.

From a Sunshine Review press release:

Award winners are among only 39 Web sites in America earning an "A" transparency grade from more than 5,000 analyzed. Sunshine Review's "Transparency Checklist" analyzes Web sites for information about budgets, meetings, elected and administrative officials, permits and zoning, audits, contracts, lobbying, public records, and taxes. The "Checklist" measures what content is available on government websites against what should be provided.

"Sunny Award winners deserve recognition for making information available to citizens and for setting a transparency standard that all governments can, and should, meet," said Mike Barnhart, president of Sunshine Review. "Access to information empowers every citizen to hold government officials accountable for the conduct of the public's business and the spending of taxpayers' money. Official accountability is the corner stone of self government and liberty."

Sunshine Review is a non-profit organization dedicated to state and local government transparency. The Sunshine Review wiki collects and shares transparency information and uses a 10-point "Transparency Checklist" to evaluate the content of every state and more than 5,000 local government websites. Sunshine Review collaborates with individuals and organizations throughout America in the cause of an informed citizenry and an accountable government.

Since its inception in 2008, Sunshine Review has analyzed the Web sites of all 50 states, more than 3,140 counties, 805 cities, and 1,560 school districts.

For more information, visit www.sunshinereview.org

The Democratic majority in Congress continues to reject calls to actually read bills before voting on them.

From Robert Romano of the NetRight Nation Blog:

If a growing number of House members that signed a discharge petition for H. Res. 554 have their way, every single bill in Congress will be held for least 72 business hours Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) prior to passage for a mandatory review by each house.

The discharge petition initiated by Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR2) has obtained 182 signatures, including the bill's sponsor, Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA3). Walden did so on the same day the Senate Finance Committee explicitly voted against allowing 72 hours to review ObamaCare once it was finally written.

Only 7 of Pennsylvania's 19 House members have signed the petition: Reps. Charlie Dent, Bill Shuster, Glenn Thompson, Todd Platts, Joe Pitts, Jim Gerlach and Tim Murphy. All 7 are Republicans.

What about your member of Congress? What are they hiding? Why do they want to rush through votes before anyone has a chance to read the bill?

For a complete list of the members of Congress who signed the petition, click here.

Do you get the feeling members of Congress don't know what they're voting on?

The Institute for Policy Innovation has joined the Sunlight Foundation in the "Read the Bill" initiative designed to educate the public on the importance of Congress posting all proposed legislation online "to ensure both elected officials and citizens have the chance to read and understand legislation 72 hours before it is debated."

From an Institute for Policy Innovation release:

"Forty-two and a half seconds per page -- that's how long members of Congress were given to read, understand, evaluate and consider all the implications for the largest spending bill in history - the so-called 'stimulus' package," said Bartlett Cleland, director of the IPI Center for Technology Freedom.

"Even worse, the public never had a chance to access the language of the bill before passage," said Cleland.

Unfortunately, the recent stimulus bill was not the first legislation to fly through Congress with hardly a review. Too much groundbreaking legislation has done the same over the years with little to no time for a responsible, thorough assessment.

"By definition this is information that we, the people, own -- not to mention that we also pay for the repercussions," said Cleland.

For more information on "Read the Bill," visit www.ReadTheBill.org

For more on the Institute for Public Innovation, follow the link below:

Institute for Policy Innovation: Let Us Read the Bill

Those very helpful folks at The Commonwealth Foundation have launched a new Web site to help Pennsylvania residents keep an eye on the state Legislature.

PennsylvaniaVotes.org provides "concise, non-partisan, plain-English descriptions of every bill and vote in the Pennsylvania House and Senate," according to the site.

Visitors can search bills and votes by legislator, category or keyword.

Guests can also post comments about bills and discuss other state policy issues on the Web sites' forums. People have already left comments on Judicial Elections, Transparency and Mandatory Minimum Sentencing.

PennsylvaniaVotes.org also features handy links to other Web sites that offer information about public policy issues.

A lot of people have the mistaken impression that Pennsylvania's new open-records law is intended to help make the lives of newspaper reporters easier.

The law that went into effect Jan. 1 can benefit every Pennsylvania resident who demands government accountability.

It is designed to give every Pennsylvania citizen access to their government, whether it's at the local, county or state level.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette offers some good examples of how everyday citizens can put the new law to good use:

Did you miss a meeting of your township supervisors? If they make audiotapes, those are considered open records, so you should be able to listen to a recording.

Did it seem as if it took the fire truck a long time to reach the scene of a calamity? Emergency 911 time response logs are public records, which should reflect the time of a call and the time the unit was dispatched, for example.

Which intersections are considered the most dangerous? The state Department of Transportation maintains a list, and that's a public record.

Curious about the background of city employees? Their applications and resumes should be public documents.

Read the full editorial, "Open state: A citizens' guide to Pennsylvania's new records law," at the newspaper's Web site.

And don't forget to bookmark the Web site of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, http://openrecords.state.pa.us/

The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records is open for business.

"Ensuring open and honest government is a bedrock principle of democracy," says Office of Open Records Executive Director Terry Mutchler. "It can only be attained through the unfettered exchange of information between citizens and their government."

Spend some time at the new Office of Open Records Web site and familiarize yourself with the new law. Pennsylvania residents will determine how effective the new law will become. Arm yourself with knowledge and prepare to defend your rights.

In order for the new law to have teeth behind it, citizens must utilize it against secretive government agencies and bureaucrats. Make Terry Mutchler your new best friend.

The Web site is located at http://openrecords.state.pa.us/

Not everyone is overjoyed with Pennsylvania's new open-records law, which kicks in Jan. 1, 2009.

While many within the state have praised the new Right-To-Know Law, an expert in open government from a neighboring state isn't ready to pop the champagne.

"I don't think that this is a panacea," Robert Freeman, executive director of the New York Committee on Open Government, told the Elmira Star Gazette. "It may be an improvement, but there are in my opinion lots of areas in which the law could have been drafted more effectively."

Freeman told the newspaper that Pennsylvania's new law leaves too many exceptions.

Freeman compared the Pennsylvania law with an existing one in New York and found several exemptions in the Keystone State law that N.Y. doesn't have:

* Complaints submitted to an agency, work papers underlying an audit, draft minutes and other records. In disclosing complaints, New York agencies can withhold the name.

* Pennsylvania exempts performance evaluations and the employment application of someone not hired by an agency. In New York, some information on a performance evaluation and an employment application can be withheld, Freeman said.

* The Pennsylvania law states that it does not supersede or modify the public or nonpublic nature of a record established in federal or state law, by regulation or judicial order or decree. New York law covers exemptions under statutes but not agency regulations.

Read the full story at the newspaper's Web site.

The newspaper editorialized about the new Pennsylvania law, saying it's a step in the right direction:

But considering that Pennsylvania has had some of the weakest Freedom of Information laws in the land for more than 50 years, this seems like a good start.

It's now up to the public agencies to abide by the new law and the Office of Open Records to truly advocate for the public's right to know.

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's Web site.