State lawmakers in Harrisburg have in recent weeks been debating which government records the public has a right to see. Lawmakers' action, which will lead to a rewriting of Pennsylvania's "worst-in-the-nation" open-records law, have revealed an institutional bias, particularly in the House of Representatives, toward keeping records secret.

There has been some progress toward an improved law, but there also have been too many proposals that would block the public's right to know, through exemptions. And the exemptions would make it more difficult, not less, for the public to know what its government is doing and how it is spending taxpayer dollars.

The need for an updated version of the state's 50-year-old open-records law is obvious. But for some legislators, giving Pennsylvanians easier access to government documents, similar to those enjoyed by citizens of every other state, is apparently difficult.

There are two proposals, one bill in both the House and Senate, that could become the state's new mandate. The House started with a strong proposal, which was endorsed by the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association (PNA)and other groups. But that bill has been so diluted with exemptions that some critics, including the PNA, now say the bill's current form would be a step backward for an already weak law.

A major improvement of the 50-year-old law that appears in both the House and Senate versions is what's been called a "flip of presumption." The current law presumes all government documents are private, unless it's proven they should be made public. The "flip" would presume that government documents are public, unless it can be proven a document should be kept secret.

Lawmakers in the House, however, are proposing such a list of exemptions so expansive that the new law could end up being worse than the law it replaces.

One example is a proposed blanket exemption of e-mail correspondence. Of course, this would be a massive loophole for lawmakers wanting to shield their activities from the prying eyes of the media and the public.

Voters should contact their representatives in the House and ask why e-mail should be exempted.

Another major flaw in the House version would not have the new law take effect until July 2009. And, when it did eventually take effect, it would not impact pre-existing documents. Again, voters must ask why.

The House version would exempt all correspondence between legislators and constituents. Why?

It also would exempt communication between legislators and state agencies. Why?

It would keep the results of internal audit reports secret. Why?

Whether it's true or not, it certainly looks like lawmakers have something to hide.

Watching Pennsylvania's lawmakers trying to decide what government documents the public should be able to examine is like watching the same lawmakers decide how much slot machine revenues the public should receive in the form of property tax reduction. The answer: not much — or as little as possible.

This attitude is evident in the long list of exemptions added to the House bill. The Senate version is the better proposal and has the backing of the PNAand other groups.

Rewriting the open-records law in Harrisburg can be seen as the foundation for government reforms, so clearly needed following the pay-raise scandal of 2005. If the foundation is weak, the rest of the structure will be questionable too.

Reform in Harrisburg has, so far, been a disappointment. The passage of an open-records law is a test and will reveal the institutional bias of the General Assembly — secrecy or openness.

Without a right-to-know law that favors citizens' rights over secrecy by lawmakers and bureaucrats, important reforms will be much more difficult.

In recent years, the public has learned how the pay-raise vote was engineered in secret and how unvouchered expenses violate the state constitution. News reports have revealed a pattern of wasteful spending and excessive bonuses at the state's student loan agency, the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency. The public also has seen no-bid contracts and patronage jobs at the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission and abuse at various nonprofit agencies created by, or with close ties to, powerful state lawmakers.

More recently, we have learned about nearly $4 million being paid in bonuses to legislative staffers for work that appears to have been political and election-related, which is illegal.

A restrictive open-records law, watered down by many exemptions, makes uncovering these sorts of abuses more difficult.

The House started with a good bill, but it has been amended to the point that it would worsen the already weak right-to-know law. Some reform-minded groups have labeled it "a disaster." The Senate, which is scheduled to take up its version of a new open-records law in the coming weeks, should avoid anti-citizen bias revealed in the House.

A new open-records law will be a test. Voters must insist on a strong, straightforward law. Anything less raises the question, "What are they trying to hide?"