PA State Universities, Weapons Policy and the Right to Know (Very Little)

On May 9th of this year, Raging Chicken Press was the first to report on Kutztown University’s attempt to quietly lift the ban on carrying weapons on its campus. In less than twenty-four hours, the story was picked up by the Associated Press casting Kutztown University into a national spotlight. In rapid succession, stories appeared in most regional newspapers and broadcast media. Thanks to excellent investigative work by reporters from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Allentown-based Morning Call, we learned that the change in policy had been happening under the radar of the media, faculty, staff, and students for well over a year. And, we learned, that the order to change the policy came directly from Governor Tom Corbett’s Office of General Council in consultation with PASSHE attorneys.

A few days after my initial story, I sent Right to Know requests to Kutztown University and PASSHE asking for several items, including:

  • “The ‘model policy’ on campus firearms policy from PASSHE legal counsel.” PASSHE Board of Governors Chair, Guido Pichini, issued a public statement on May 10, 2013 indicating such a policy had been shared with all 14 PASSHE universities. 
  • Correspondence, including email correspondence, between Kutztown University administrators and relevant staff and the Office of the Chancellor and the PASSHE Board of Governors regarding Kutztown’s change in gun policy going back to March 2012.
  • A copy of the legal opinion from PASSHE attorneys “concerning the constitutionality/legality of a ban on guns on PASSHE universities.”

Both Kutztown and PASSHE said they required a 30 day extension in order to carry out a “legal review” of my request for documents — their right under PA’s Right to Know law — with the exception of PASSHE’s “model policy,” which Kenn Marshall, PASSHE’s Agency Open Records Officer and official spokesperson sent to me a few days after my request was filed.

A month later, I received responses to my requests. Most of my requests were “granted in part, and denied in part” and were subjected to significant redaction.

What, if anything, did the documents reveal?

The short answer is: not much upon first glance.

The reason why the documents didn’t reveal much had a whole lot to do with Section 708 of PA’s Right to Know law entitled “Exceptions for public records,” specifically, 708(b)(10)(A). That section excludes records that reflect:

The internal, predecisional deliberations of an agency, its members, employees or officials or predecisional deliberations between agency members, employees or officials and members, employees of officials of another agency, including predecisional deliberations relating to a budget recommendation, legislative proposal, legislative amendment, contemplated or proposed policy or course of action or any research, memos or other documents used in the predecisional deliberations.

In short, the public is allowed access to the outcomes of deliberations, but we are not allowed to know how the decisions were made and who influenced those decisions. We are welcome to eat the sausage; we are just not allowed to know how it was made. Here is a sample of one of the redacted email exchanges I received: 

RTK Redaction Sample

My personal favorite was a redacted email from Kutztown University President Javier Cevallos’s Chief of Staff, Elsa Collins, dated May 10, 2013:

Elsa Collins Have a Nice Day Redacted


Not only was this document denied by the ubiquitous 708(b)(10)(A), is was also deemed not to “meet the definition of a public record” in that it is “legally privileged in that it constitutes client-to-attorney communications made for the purpose of providing legal advice,” according to Marshall. This redacted email was followed by three completely redacted sheets of paper under the title, “Comment on proposed policy.” The “Comment on proposed policy,” may have contained Kutztown University administration’s request for legal guidance from PASSHE as it was sent to Cathleen McCormack, the PASSHE lawyer assigned to Kutztown University. But, we don’t know that for sure. We do know that PASSHE likes green.

Pennsylvania’s current Right to Know law was signed into law in 2009 after public outrage in response to PA legislators voting themselves a pay raise in the middle of the night in 2005. The current Right to Know law in the state was considered a huge step forward, considering that Pennsylvania former open records law was “widely characterized as the nation’s worst,” according to Jan Murphy writing for the Patriot-News in December 2009. However, we should be under no illusions that sun shines in all corners of the Pennsylvania legislature and government. This is important.

Since at least 2008, we’ve seen model legislation from right-wing, corporate-sponsored organizations like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), show up on the floor of state legislatures across the country. It wasn’t until the Wisconsin uprising in 2011 and the investigative work by projects like Center for Media and Democracy’s “ALEC Exposed” webpage, that Americans began to wake up to the reality that our democracy was being bought out from underneath us. In Pennsylvania, ALEC, with the help of their sponsored right-wing state legislators, has been able to introduce no fewer than six model bills on issues ranging from health care policy to austerity measures for public-sector workers. To what extent would these ALEC model bills be considered “predecisional deliberations?” And, given that ALEC has been one of the organizations promoting “Castle Doctrine” or “Stand Your Ground” legislation, do we have a right to know if such organizations are influencing PASSHE weapons policy?

Did the Right to Know requests yield any useful information?

The short answer is: yes. Here’s what we know now that we did not know before.

First, Kutztown University and the other 13 PASSHE universities were working on revising the weapons policy for at about a year before Kutztown University lifted its ban on guns on April 19, 2013. An email from PASSHE’s Chief Council Leo Pandeladis was sent to “DUC – Presidents” and “DUC – Attorneys” (DUC = Dixon University Center, aka PASSHE headquarters) on May 15, 2012. The email indicated that there was an attachment containing “A revised weapons draft based on feedback from various campuses.” Given the May 10, 2012 date of Elsa Collins’s “Comment on proposed weapons policy” email discussed above, it would be a safe assumption that the comments made in that entirely redacted email were considered by PASSHE lawyers before they made any revisions and sent this email:

Pandeladis Email


Second, we now have a full copy of the “model policy” that PASSHE sent to all 14 universities. The policy is written as a “fill-in-the-blank” form that each PASSHE university can simply plug-in their name and “boom” they’ve got a new policy.

Model Policy Excerpt

While the ALEC-esque process of instituting a significant policy change should give us pause in its own right, there is another significant aspect of PASSHE’s attempt to impose this policy change that may lead to a protracted battle.

In September 2008, PASSHE Assistant Vice Chancellor for Labor Relations, Michael Mottola, notified the president of the faculty union, APSCUF, that it was instituting a smoking ban on campus – inside and outside. However, on May 19, 2009, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board ordered PASSHE to

Rescind the September 8, 2008 unilateral change to the smoking policy and reinstate the past practice of permitting bargaining unit employees to smoke on campus while outdoors.

The Board did not argue that there is some kind of Constitutional right to smoke; rather, it found that the new policy constituted a change in work rules that was subject to mandatory bargaining under Pennsylvania’s Public Employee Relations Act. The Board found that PASSHE was required to bargain collectively:

PASSHE shall:

  1. Cease and desist from interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Article IV of the Act.
  2. Cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively in good faith with an employee representative which is the exclusive representative of employees in an appropriate unit, including but limited to the discussing of grievances with the exclusive representative.

In short, PASSHE got a little smack-down for violating the Public Employees Relation Act in its attempt to do an end around the collective bargaining process. PASSHE wanted to impose a new work rule on faculty and staff by decree. APSCUF said not so fast. The Board came down clearly on the side of APSCUF.

While allowing guns on campus raises a whole range of additional issues that cigarettes do not, most importantly the Second Amendment and new pro-gun legislation supported by right-wing state legislators and Governor Corbett, there is still a question about how this PASSHE policy change took place. PASSHE clearly did not learn from its 2009 smack-down. An armed campus presents serious issues for the workplace, which were never addressed as part of PASSHE’s desire to sneak in a new gun policy behind the backs of students, parents, faculty, and staff.

Third, the image reigns supreme. That PASSHE would take the risk of violating the PA Public Employee Relations Act again, suggests that there may have been some concern about the reaction by parents of PASSHE university students and Pennsylvanians more broadly. Indeed, the misdirection and misinformation by University Public Relations officials at PASSHE universities that I reported on in a May 15, 2013 article points squarely to this conclusion.

A week before Raging Chicken Press published the first article on Kutztown’s stealthy changes to its weapons policy, the president of the local chapter of the faculty union, Paul Quinn, began receiving death threats. As I reported, faculty first learned of the death threats at a May 9, 2013 meeting of the unions Representative Council – just a few hours after Raging Chicken Press ran our first story on the issue. Apparently, the university administration was beginning to realize the cat was out of the bag. In a May 14th email sent to acting PASSHE Chancellor Peter Garland, KU President Javier Cevallos reported on the growing media interest in the story and relayed

that someone (not a hard guess, see his blog leaked that Paul Quinn has received death threats. It has gone as far as letting the press know what the notes slipped under his door said.

Cevallos email to Garland

For the purposes of full disclosure, that “someone” to which Cevallos refers is yours truly. KU XChange is another blog I own, focusing issues related to labor in higher education, specifically issues on Kutztown’s campus affecting our members. I have been active in our local union’s leadership since I first took a job at Kutztown in 2002 and currently serve as the chair of our public relations committee.

While it’s flattering to know that Kutztown’s president reads at least one of my blogs, it is remarkable that Cevallos would devote a significant part of his email directing the acting Chancellor to the “leak” (even if the chronology is off – the Morning Call reported on the death threats three days before my article on the death threats was posted here and on the KU XChange).

Chipping away at our democracy

The story of welcoming guns on PASSHE university campuses is far from over. In response to public outrage, the Chair of PASSHE’s Board of Governors, Guido Pichini, issued a statement saying that the Board has asked universities to freeze their efforts to update their weapons policies until a newly formed Public Safety and Security Task Force reviews “the issue of weapons on campus in order to help ensure consistency across the System and that the policies comply with the law.” Perhaps this time around there will be a little more public scrutiny of the issue and PASSHE will include students, faculty, staff, and members of the community in the discussion.

What is most troubling is that PASSHE claims that the decision to lift the weapons ban on campuses began when a “number of individuals” raised concerns about a campus weapons ban. On May 10, 2013, Cevallos sent out the official “PASSHE Weapons Policy Statement,” which explained the reason for the policy changes:

In the spring of 2012 questions were raised by a number of individuals concerning campus firearms policy. In order to provide guidance on the issue, PASSHE legal counsel shared a model policy for consideration that addressed both public safety and constitutional concerns.

PASSHE universities have the ability to prohibit weapons, including legally registered firearms, in academic buildings, student residence halls, dining facilities, student union buildings, athletic facilities and recreation centers or while attending a sporting, entertainment or educational event on university property or sponsored by the university. However, PASSHE’s policies also must be consistent with Pennsylvania law, which allows individuals who are properly permitted to carry a firearm “on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout the Commonwealth.”

Just who are these individuals who “raised concerns?” Was there an official complaint? Some reports say that several students raised these concerns. Other reports point only to anonymous individuals. At this point, however, we don’t know what concerns were raised or the merit of those concerns. Raging Chicken Press’s request for the “legal opinion from PASSHE’s attorneys concerning the constitutionality/legality of a ban on guns at PASSHE universities” was denied. Ken Marshall explained the reason:

The legal review has determined that the record requested does not meet the definition of a “public record” as defined by 65 P.S. §67.102; therefore, Request No. 4 is denied. The information requested is legally privileged in that it constitutes client-to-attorney communications made for the purpose of providing legal advice.  See Gilliard v. AIG Ins. Co., 609 Pa. 65, 15 A.3d 44 (2011).

So, anonymous individuals who may or may not have been students “raised concerns,” which led to a lift of campus weapons bans. There was no court decision finding that PASSHE universities must lift their weapons bans. There was no specific legislative action directing PASSHE to do so. My guess is that PASSHE lawyers decided to try to avert a lawsuit by sneaking in a policy change. Democratic processes subverted for fear of litigation.

There is a bigger story here that is only beginning to come into focus. The individuals who “raised concerns” did so in the wake of new “Castle Doctrine” legislation in Pennsylvania signed into law in 2011 that includes “Stand Your Ground” provisions. The Pennsylvania “Stand Your Ground” provisions are not as extreme as the ones in Florida that emboldened George Zimmerman to kill Trayvon Martin, but they lean in that direction. We didn’t get here by accident.

In the weeks and months ahead we hope to uncover the players behind PASSHE’s new weapons policy and those responsible for chipping away at our democracy. It’s time to find out who’s laughing at us behind closed doors.



Liked it? Take a second to support us on Patreon!

3 Comments on PA State Universities, Weapons Policy and the Right to Know (Very Little)

  1. This is quite the interesting read. While my political leanings might put me in a position to consider the policy change a “victory” the reality is that nothing changes for anyone. Any student or faculty member looking to effectively provide for their own personal defense against one or many assailants still cannot do so, as the policy (including the model policy) still has a ban on carry inside a building. Without jeopardizing employment or education, those same students and faculty are still essentially no safer than they were before the policy change.

    What I find to be patently ridiculous of a position is the idea that a ban, which is a piece of paper that says, “don’t do this”. While this might make for a comfortable security blanket to wrap oneself up in to keep the boogeyman away, it’s a dangerous supposition to believe that a ban is going to stop a determined person looking to rob, rape or kill. The events that transpired in Deatrick Hall are blatant evidence of the failings of a piece of paper. A ban is no effective shield, it is no effective defense, and it creates victims, not safety.

    Again I must point out that in the last 50 years, the vast overwhelming majority of mass shootings have happened in gun free zones. Conversely, the vast overwhelming majority of defensive firearm uses happen without a shot being fired, seldom make the news, and by estimates done in 1994 by Florida State University, happen once every 13 seconds (2.5 million per year). In the last 19 years, every state in this country has passed legislation allowing for more effective personal defense – with a change in law making it easier to legally obtain and carry a firearm by law abiding persons, I posit that the estimate has increased considerably. The nature of a defensive use that doesn’t result in a shot being fired means that it’s difficult to determine just how many occur, but considering the climate of the country in the mid 90s versus today, it is very easy to believe that more defensive uses are occurring.

    When it comes to the debate about “our democracy” and fundamental rights of the person (the smallest minority is the individual), we have to acknowledge that these two philosophies are at odds with one another. First and foremost, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. The distinction may be splitting of hairs, but it’s an important distinction; you and I do not get to vote directly on most matters, they are voted on by elected representatives. The founders understood that public passions and national discourse could and very well may limit the rights of the individual by mob rule, hence the first 10 amendments to the constitution. We can argue philosophy, and and we argue context, but the courts have ruled on the 2nd amendment in D.C. v. Heller that an individual has the lawful right to own a firearm, not for hunting or whatever absurdity the Democrat Left would have us believe, but for personal defense. To argue against constitutional amendments individually (including the Bill of Rights, arguably the most important constitutional amendments) calls all of them into question. If we say that we no longer need personal ownership of firearms for defined, lawful purposes, then freedom of press, religion, speech, quartering of soldiers, security of person, papers and effects, security against self incrimination, speedy trials, double jeopardy, unusual punishments, non-specified rights and states’ powers all have the be called into question.

    Justice Robert Jackson said it best, “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    Finally, I would like to address your inclusion of the Zimmerman/Martin case. Let’s be absolutely clear: George Zimmerman was cleared of all charges. He is, legally speaking, an innocent man. Again, we can argue philosophy, and we can argue motive, intent and actions, but the court and a jury of his citizen peers has spoken and ruled. This has nothing to do with the PASSHE or Kutztown University policy changes.

  2. Kevin, I read your posts and articles but I can never figure out what it is that you stand for? Are you against PASSHE, KU and their policies? Or are you just someone who likes to stir up drama?

    Really, what is it that you are looking for with your ranting about the weapons policy? You obviously put a lot of time into attempting to get information about it, so one must question your motives? Or are you just trying to drum this subject up again prior to the students moving back in to create a frenzy? Do you think you are going to uncover some type of scandalous actions by doing all of this?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if you are the guy who put those notes under Quinn’s door. That was a lame publicity stunt.

    It’s guys like you who pushed this issue into the national spot light, and what good did it do anyone? All it did was damage the school’s reputation, cause a shortfall of students which will lead to lay offs and put everyone on edge. Other universities have policies like this and none of them had any of the back lash that KU got.

    Perhaps your efforts would be better spent actually teaching the students or genuinely trying to improve KU instead of playing politician/detective/instigator.

    • Dear Jessica,

      I’ll leave your baseless accusations and insults aside and address parts of your comment that people might actually be interested in.

      In terms of your initial question about what I stand for, I have gotten several similar questions from a range of people. I received several media inquiries who wanted me to be the “anti-gun” voice at KU. I’ve had to explain that I am not so interested in the pro/con debate over guns. Even when baited to try and perform that role, I’ve had to say “sorry, I don’t think my answer is going to be what you want to hear.” In fact, I’ve had that very conversation with Robert (the author of the other lengthy comment to this article thus far).

      What got me interested in this story from the beginning had much more to do with PROCESS and the system of SHARED GOVERNANCE at Kutztown University and the other 13 PASSHE universities. Kutztown’s current administration a history of trying to avoid public, transparent, and honest conversations about policy changes, finances, and institutional goals. If you read the first piece I ever published in Raging Chicken Press, “Kutztown University, Shock Doctrine, and Snake Oil Tales” <> or, more recently, “The Persistence of Crisis @ Kutztown U: Work Harder or Fight Back,” <> you will see that my interest in that issue is not specific to Kutztown/PASSHE’s gun policy.

      The key question in my mind is: do students, parents, faculty, staff, and the general public have a right to weigh in on significant policy issues at public universities? I obviously think we all should – as a faculty member and a taxpayer and a parent of two children. That is supposed to be one of the differences between public state universities and private ones. Public state universities are supposed to serve US. The only way we can effectively assess how well these institutions serve us and the Commonwealth as a whole, is for significant policy changes to be part of a public discussion – not a decisions that is decided behind closed doors by a handful of people and then quietly enacted.

      The gun policy issue touches upon an additional significant issues. Colleges and universities are supposed to be devoted to the free exchange of ideas. They are supposed to be THE PLACE to openly discuss and debate significant, even controversial, issues. We value the free and open exchange of ideas in higher education for the same reason we value the freedom of speech, the press, and religion. As a nation, we are supposed to believe that the free exchange of ideas benefits ALL OF US, that we only learn when we allow our ideas to confront others and consider others. The fact that PASSHE sought to change university gun policies because, from my perspective, they were afraid of law suits robbed faculty, students, staff, parents, and the community of a rich opportunity to debate and consider the issues at stake. This theft is especially cutting because it involves Constitutional rights and state law.

      As far was what I stand for, there you have it. For better or for worse, I believe in open, public discussion and deliberation. I believe in democracy. And, I believe in the mission of higher education to foster that kind of discussion and deliberation. Universities should not run and hide from that mission, they should embrace it. I believe that the reputation of an institution should be based upon what that institution does in practice, not the image it attempts to create for itself through good PR and spin.

      And, as far as your wish that I shut up and go teach my students, I can only smile. Teachers – both K-12 and higher ed – get it coming and going. Either we hear “Those who can do, those who can’t teach,” or we are told our work is disconnected from the real world. It’s a tired old routine, but still effective at diminishing our work. The fact is, I teach writing – critical writing, investigative writing, research writing. I’ve always believed in the old adage, “if you’re going to talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk.” There is a lot of wisdom in that.” What kind of teacher would I be if I was not ALSO PRACTICING the skills that I am teaching in the classroom? What kind of service would I be providing my students if I wasn’t also an active, critical writer myself? I can only imagine what would happen if our chemists and physicists stopped carrying out laboratory experiments or if our historians swore of archival research. As a writing teacher, I also need to be a writer if my teaching is going to be meaningful and useful.

      If I don’t do that, why not just have a small group of corporate profiteers force students to read their textbooks, take on-line multiple-choice tests, and do away with teachers entirely? Why not outsource the work of teaching to India or China like our politicians and corporate leaders have done with all our other industries? Oh, wait, that’ IS the point, isn’t it.

      For what it’s worth, I will continue to believe in the mission of higher education and democracy. I will do my best to walk the walk and not just spew hot air or theorize about things that have little relevance people’s lives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.