Wednesday was the 30th annual “World Press Freedom Day” as proclaimed by the United Nations.

The U.N. says “May 3 acts as a reminder to governments of the need to respect their commitment to press freedom. It is also a day of reflection among media professionals about issues of press freedom and professional ethics.

To complement freedom of the press, Pennsylvania lawmakers enacted the Right to Know Law to guarantee that governments at all levels conduct their business openly; not enshrouded in secrecy.

Last month I wrote about how Summit Hill Borough Council created a new directive that all its monthly reports will be withheld from the press and the public.

It’s an alarming edict. I mentioned in the article about police reports not being available, but also being withheld are lists of bills paid with taxpayer dollars, code enforcement matters, trash collection delinquencies, etc.

Although I mentioned the police report, I have to clarify that this is not a directive by Chief of Police Todd Woodward. He has been open and cooperative with the press and the public. For working with the media, he’s one of the best I’ve known. The mayor of Summit Hill also is not part of the council’s antics.

I’ve been covering Summit Hill Borough Council for several years and up until a few months ago, there was always a packet of information including various reports. Then secretary/treasurer Kira Steber said she was at a conference where it was stated that reports should not be given to the media until after they have been approved by the council. After council meetings, she always would provide such reports to the media when requested.

At the borough meeting it was reported that its solicitor, attorney Robert Frycklund, advised council not to allow any of these reports to be shared with the media. When questioned about it, he said he advises the council, but the council members make the final decision. Of course the council listens to “advice” from the solicitor. It’s why they hire a solicitor - for guidance.

Frycklund followed up after the meeting to say he did deny part of a Right to Know request from a citizen who asked for the mayor’s report, police report and zoning officer report from the March 14 meeting. He provided the mayor’s report, but denied the police report based on a section of the law that exempts records that relate to or result in a criminal investigation.

Likewise, he denied the request for the zoning report, which he said could be part of a noncriminal investigation.

Under Pennsylvania law, a request must be answered in five days, or the borough must ask for a 30-day extension. Frycklund answered in two days.

He said in the days following the meeting that he didn’t want to release a record without reviewing with Council or the police chief.

Melissa Melewsky, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, disagrees with Frycklund. She said Section 708(d) of the Right to Know law makes clear that such reports are public record. In an article that appeared in the Times News, she clarified her stance.

Frycklund told Times News Editor Marta Gouger, “I’m all for transparency, but we have to balance the interests of the public and also protect the integrity of investigations.”

He said he is sending a letter to Council suggesting members and the chief discuss what records can be released.

Understandably our council members are elected to represent us and make some very difficult decisions. All actions, though, must be made in public forums, which apparently does occur. Those reports they’re withholding are sometimes the basis for the decisions.

Without adequate information, it’s hard for reporters to deliver thorough, and even accurate, information to the readers and taxpayers.

We understand sometimes individuals use the Right to Know law for personal agendas. On the other hand, no citizen should be denied access to public records.

It’s not just Summit Hill that has a transparency problem. We understand some other municipalities are less eager to release reports than they did in the past.

It can also get expensive.

For example, just to check a list of civil suits filed in Carbon County requires either going to the office of the Carbon County Prothonotary in Jim Thorpe, or paying a $300 annual fee.

Never mind you can search on the court system for criminal cases from throughout the state. The federal court system allows searching of criminal and civil cases for a small per-page fee.

But in Carbon County, you cannot see public records online unless you pay an unaffordable fee. Who gets that $300 fee? Why are public records of other agencies free, but the prothonotary’s records are ridiculously expensive?

All government must be transparent to the public and the media.

Directives from people in charge, or the levying of exorbitant costs, should not be tolerated by the public.