Pennsylvania Court Hides Free Rides for Toll Collectors

by The Newspaper

Published: July 21st, 2011

pennsylvania court hides free rides for toll collectors

Public employees can take rides on toll roads at taxpayer expense, but these trips are not subject to disclosure according to a ruling Tuesday by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. A three-judge panel denied the freedom of information request of the Harrisburg Patriot-News for E-ZPass transponder usage information data by for employees of the Pennsylvania Turnpike. On October 21 the paper sought details on the 2000 toll collectors who do not pay for use of the road, regardless of whether the travel was job related.

“I am requesting information in Excel format that details employee usage of Pennsylvania Turnpike since Jan. 3, 2010,” bureau chief Jan Murphy wrote to the commission. “I would like to know how many employees there are and how many have E-ZPass transponders assigned to them. Of those employees with commission-approved transponders, I am requesting their names, their positions with the commission, and a record of their usage of the turnpike including identifying the interchanges where they enter and exit the turnpike and the times and dates of travel. If this would cost more than $100, please notify me in advance.”

The commission immediately denied the request, citing Pennsylvania’s motorist privacy statute which offers substantially more protection than other states for tolling information. The data is specifically exempt from the right-to-know law and is not even “discoverable by court order.” States like California allow lawyers to obtain toll road usage records for use in divorce proceedings.

The Patriot-News appealed the commission’s refusal to the state Office of Open Records, arguing the privacy law was meant to protect the general public, not to shield government employees from disclosure of their employment benefits. The Office of Open Records on December 1 decided that the turnpike must turn over the job titles of those with free transponders and toll road usage records by those transponders so long as the names of the employees involved were redacted. The commission appealed the decision and the Commonwealth Court sided with the toll road.

“All of the information specified in section 8117(d) of the Transportation Act is exempt from disclosure, and the exemption includes vehicle movement records,” Judge Patricia A. McCullough ruled. “While requester did not use the term ‘vehicle movement records’ in her request, she did seek a record of the employees’ usage of the turnpike, including identifying the interchanges where they enter and exit the turnpike and the times and dates of travel. The term ‘vehicle movement records’ is not defined by the Transportation Act. Nevertheless, we can perceive of no other types of records which would fit within a definition of this term other than the type sought by requester herein.”

The request for the job titles of free account holders was denied because the commission insisted it maintained no documents containing that information. A copy of the ruling is available in a PDF file at the source link below.

Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission v. Murphy (Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, 7/19/2011)

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

#Crime&Punishment #Government #Law #Taxes #TollRoads #Traffic

The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments

Join the conversation

7 of 19 comments

HerrKaLeun on Jul 21, 2011

it sounds to me the 2000 people are working for the toll collection. Is the toll collection owned by the state and not private? that actually would be a good thing, because the profit of the toll-fascists would at least go to government and not some off-shore tax evading company (like red light cameras). It would be reasonable to give them free toll road use to come to work at the booth. If I work a that county fair I get free admission to just get to to my workplace. the band playing in the bar doesn't pay cover charge to get in. It might be an accounting nightmare to separate charges for work-usage and private usage. Obviously there is danger of abuse when an employee let's his cousins and all his brothers in law use the EZ-Pass. But charging the employees for their private miles might be more costly. I work for local government (a free bus pass is all my traffic perk, mind that, the city would even charge me for parking just so that i pay my employer for the benefit to work) and when I use a city cell phone for a private call I need to pay that. So for 20 ct. I spend some minutes filling out the charge form, an accountant and comptroller spends time with it. Maybe a total of an hour of staff time to get my 20 ct?? BTW: I use my personal cell phone for work because I don't want that hassle and want to use a good phone, not the crap they give us that can't even sync with outlook. So withhold judgment before you actually have more information on how beneficial this benefit actually is. It really may be cheaper to just let them use it free of charge. But I totally agree with the fact that all kind of perks should be public record.

Like Reply
- See 1 previous
- Ronnie Schreiber on Jul 22, 2011
  
  Dangers of abuse? Not from one of our selfless, dedicated, compassionate and caring public employees. /sarc Forget public record, public employees shouldn't get perks, period. And don't whine about how there are perks on every job. Working for us members of the public isn't every job. It comes with certain responsibilities and one of them is not getting special treatment. Don't let the tax feeders use it for free, let them pay like everyone else. How are they any different? They have to drive on a toll road to get to work, just like millions of other commuters. The idea that public employees should get any "perks" is absurd. Public employees should barely be allowed to vote, certainly not be allowed to form unions, and never given special privileges.
  
  Like
- Mazder3 on Jul 22, 2011
  
  @Ronnie Schreiber I agree that they should be paying tolls and not getting any other perks but barely being allowed to vote?
  
  Like
JuniperBug on Jul 21, 2011

I don't see the huge problem. I work for an airline and fly for next to nothing, given that there are open seats on the flight I want to fly on. Cops don't get traffic tickets, Blockbuster employees presumably can take home movies for free, restaurant workers get cheap food, theatre employees get into movies for free, etc. If one of the perks of being a toll collector is that they save a few bucks on the very tolls they collect, what's the big deal? This isn't exactly a case of fat cats doling out to themselves, now is it?

Like Reply
- See 2 previous
- Golden2husky on Jul 21, 2011
  
  Not to mention the collectors are not getting something that has to be restocked with public funds. The traffic from the collectors pretty much has no effect on the road, so there is no added cost. Some jobs just have added perks. My friend is a Florida cop and he often eats at fast food joints for free. Such behavior is illegal in my state but in Florida the owners have the option as to give free food or not. To the owners, the random appearance of police is good for security. So, I don't think allowing toll collectors to drive on toll roads without paying is a big deal at all.
  
  Like
- Ronnie Schreiber on Jul 22, 2011
  
  You don't get it, do you? Cops not getting traffic tickets is corrupt. Public employees should not get any kind of perks or special treatment. There's a difference between public and private sector jobs. The reality is that insurance companies and a lot of financial regulations have made the kind of perks and professional courtesies more of a thing of the past, except in government jobs. Doctors can't freebie clergy without fear of being charged with insurance fraud or charging Medicaid more than they charge those clergy. I'm sorry but lately I've been at the receiving end of a lot of rude behavior, entitled attitudes and treatment that you'd never see in the private sector. A consumer affairs rep at the Post Office hung up on me because I was not thrilled that I had to call up consumer affairs to try and get a refund for a non delivered express mail package and make two trips to my local PO. My ex is a customer service rep for Blue Cross, and someone better be screaming or swearing at her before she hangs up or she's likely to get fired. There's absolutely no accountability in the public sector. Look at Rupert Murdoch in contrast. He flipping closed down a business because of a scandal. When was the last time a government agency closed down period, let alone for bad employee behavior?
  
  Like
- Golden2husky on Jul 22, 2011
  
  @Ronnie Schreiber If you check out a Consumer Reports survey, satisfaction in customer service is at an all time low. Public or private, people are giving lousy service. Why? Well, on the private side, many full time people were let go and replaced with part timers to "save" on paying benefits. Anybody who thinks this business model is the recipe for success is smoking something. Public service? Some have a bad attitude because they feel they can get away with it. Others are tired of defending their performance because of being lumped in with the worst performers, or they are disgusted with being blamed for the recession. Either way, its time for a radical change. I have just been stonewalled on a @200 return for a heater bought online. The person is not rude to me; they just stopped replying, hoping i lose resolve. Not gonna happen...I let AMEX pull the charge and let them deal with it...
  
  Like

Recent Comments

Redapple2 Love the wheels
Redapple2 Good luck to them. They used to make great cars. 510. 240Z, Sentra SE-R. Maxima. Frontier.
Joe65688619 Under Ghosn they went through the same short-term bottom-line thinking that GM did in the 80s/90s, and they have not recovered say, to their heyday in the 50s and 60s in terms of market share and innovation. Poor design decisions (a CVT in their front-wheel drive "4-Door Sports Car", model overlap in a poorly performing segment (they never needed the Altima AND the Maxima...what they needed was one vehicle with different drivetrain, including hybrid, to compete with the Accord/Camry, and decontenting their vehicles: My 2012 QX56 (I know, not a Nissan, but the same holds for the Armada) had power rear windows in the cargo area that could vent, a glass hatch on the back door that could be opened separate from the whole liftgate (in such a tall vehicle, kinda essential if you have it in a garage and want to load the trunk without having to open the garage door to make room for the lift gate), a nice driver's side folding armrest, and a few other quality-of-life details absent from my 2018 QX80. In a competitive market this attention to detai is can be the differentiator that sell cars. Now they are caught in the middle of the market, competing more with Hyundai and Kia and selling discounted vehicles near the same price points, but losing money on them. They invested also invested a lot in niche platforms. The Leaf was one of the first full EVs, but never really evolved. They misjudged the market - luxury EVs are selling, small budget models not so much. Variable compression engines offering little in terms of real-world power or tech, let a lot of complexity that is leading to higher failure rates. Aside from the Z and GT-R (low volume models), not much forced induction (whether your a fan or not, look at what Honda did with the CR-V and Acura RDX - same chassis, slap a turbo on it, make it nicer inside, and now you can sell it as a semi-premium brand with higher markup). That said, I do believe they retain the technical and engineering capability to do far better. About time management realized they need to make smarter investments and understand their markets better.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Off-road fluff on vehicles that should not be off road needs to die.
Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Saw this posted on social media; “Just bought a 2023 Tundra with the 14" screen. Let my son borrow it for the afternoon, he connected his phone to listen to his iTunes.The next day my insurance company raised my rates and added my son to my policy. The email said that a private company showed that my son drove the vehicle. He already had his own vehicle that he was insuring.My insurance company demanded he give all his insurance info and some private info for proof. He declined for privacy reasons and my insurance cancelled my policy.These new vehicles with their tech are on condition that we give up our privacy to enter their world. It's not worth it people.”