It is hard to argue with the proposition that when the public's money is being spent, the public has a right to know how and where it is being spent.

But as logical as that argument is, too many people in Pennsylvania don't see it that way. Chief among those are Penn State and the three state-related universities - the University of Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln. At those schools, partially funded by state tax dollars, the budget is shielded from public view.

Want to know what one of these schools pays its president or football coach? Too bad, say university officials and the state legislature that long ago exempted these schools from the state's right-to-know law.

The 14-school State System of Higher Education has long operated as if it was subject to the right-to-know provisions and the state system was specifically and officially brought under the provisions of the right-to-know law in 2002.

Whether it is due to greater political influence exerted by Penn State and Pitt or some other reason, the exemption for those schools is wrong. Public pressure should encourage lawmakers to eliminate the right-to-know exclusions for Penn State, Pitt and the other state-related schools.

It won't be an easy sell, however. Penn State, Pitt and the others have considerable clout in Harrisburg. And, lawmakers themselves are receptive to the argument these schools make regarding full financial disclosure being inconvenient and uncomfortable at times. Lawmakers in leadership positions have access to funds that amount to little more than slush funds, for which they do not have to account or reveal expenditures.

But the message to be pounded home in Harrisburg from across the state is that public money requires full disclosure and reasonable access. It's taxpayers' money being spent and the public has a right to know how it is being spent. No exceptions.

In defending Penn State's refusal to reveal football coach Joe Paterno's pay package, university spokesman Bill Mahon said simply, "We don't want to do that. It's worked out well for Penn State."

No doubt it has worked out well. Hiding significant spending from prying eyes helps prevent public relations problems that might occur if taxpayers know the coach's or president's salary and feel it is too high. But university officials should be able - in fact, should be forced - to defend these expenditures involving taxpayers' dollars and students' tuition payments. It might not always be pleasant or without controversy, but it is taxpayers' and students' money these university officials are spending, not their own.

University presidents are in charge of multimillion-dollar budgets and staffs numbering in the thousands, so even a $500,000 salary would not be hard to justify.

Mahon attempted to justify Penn State's exemption from right-to-know requirements by suggesting that Pennsylvania's private colleges and universities receive state subsidies without being subject to the right-to-know law. Yet the 14-school State System should be the example Penn State and Pitt look to with their compliance with the right-to-know law.

The argument boils down to this: Public money equals the public's right to know - period.

- J.L.W.III