Medical marijuana laws keep public needlessly in dark

In yet another reminder that it helps to read the fine print, new temporary medical marijuana regulations made public last week underline the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s stubborn insistence on restricting public access to information about the identities of those who scored permit applications for the multibilliondollar new industry.

Worse, there’s every indication that the department was trying to pull a fast one on the taxpayers.

As PennLive’s Wallace McKelvey reports, the agency, as is its custom, issued a press release about the new regulations. But it conveniently left out the part about the access rules.

The records proposal did appear in the Pennsylvania Bulletin in May 12. But unless they knew what they were looking for in the thicket of legalese, interested parties would have missed it entirely. Members of the public, meanwhile, had a scant five days to submit comments on the temporary rules before they were enacted.

It’s another sign of the Wolf administration’s disturbing penchant for secrecy, despite its public pose of defending and championing transparency and accountability.

Unlike other states, Pennsylvania has refused to open the books and reveal its $1 billion pitch to lure Amazon and its HQ2 to the Keystone State. Both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have made the online retailer’s list of finalists for its new headquarters.

The Pennsylvania Office of Open Records repeatedly sided with those seeking access to those records, including news organizations and others.

Yet, mind-bogglingly, the state has filed suit to keep that information a secret.

Then there’s Gov. Tom Wolf’s steadfast refusal to release the findings of an Office of Inspector General’s report on the 2017 controversy surrounding Lt. Gov. Mike Stack.

The new regulations appear to have come in response to PennLive’s ongoing effort in state court to obtain the identities of the panelists who reviewed the applications for 12 grower/processor and 27 dispensary permits.

Last August, the state Office of Open Records ruled that the agency had to disclose that information.

The Department of Health, in turn, appealed the decision to Commonwealth Court, where it is still pending nine months later. PennLive’s initial records request was made in May 2017.

As McKelvey notes, Pennsylvania’s medical marijuana law included language barring applicants from obtaining the names of people reviewing applications. However, it doesn’t prohibit the release of that information to journalists and the general public.

Most other states with marijuana programs have disclosed such information although, in most cases, after the permits were awarded.

As McKelvey further reported, good government advocates have pointed to the possibility of conflicts of interest on a secret panel.

Through a spokeswoman, the Health Department reiterated its position that keeping the panelists’ names secret safeguarded them from outside pressure and threats to public safety.

Last week, the Commonwealth Court ordered both PennLive and the Department of Health to file briefs addressing what effect, if any, the new regulations would have on public access to information.

It was unclear whether they would impact the current litigation.

But we share the position of Joshua Bonn, the attorney representing PennLive in the case, who logically asserted that the “Department of Health does not have authority to enact regulations that nullify the Rightto-Know Law.”

Only the General Assembly has the power to declare what is, and is not, a public record.

Simply put, the regulation would set the dangerous precedent because it “would allow agencies to make any information non-public simply by enacting a regulation,” Bonn said.

Nor does the Department of Health have the right, Melissa Melewsky, the media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association observed, to changes its public access rules just because they’re the subject of a legal challenge

The Health Department should drop the charade, stop the needless and pointless legal gamesmanship, and release the identities of the review panel.

If it’s good enough for other states, it should be good enough for Pennsylvania.

Particularly for an administration that prides itself on its transparency.