Editorial: Why appoint a public information officer?
Share this post:
A public information officer seems like a good idea.
The idea is a designated person is the spokesperson for a government entity or other agency. The name sounds like someone whose job is providing information, so it can be frustrating when the reality proves to be different.
In 2019, the Columbia Journal Review wrote about an escalation in the number of PIOs becoming part of the communications process, becoming gate-keepers for information that often has no reason to be fenced.
In the three years since, PIOs have continued to funnel information from police departments and state agencies in Pennsylvania. They have also become increasingly common in municipalities.
Take Allegheny Township in Westmoreland County.
Last week, the supervisors passed a resolution 2-1 appointing Township Manager Gregory Primm as the PIO. The move came amid questions from several residents who showed up to speak and the no vote of Supervisor Jamie Morabito, who said he was never consulted on the resolution.
Supervisor Michael Korns said he pushed the idea after recent incidents in which he said incorrect information was provided to the media and needed to be walked back later.
“We need correct information,” he said.
Very true. The question is whether a public information officer will make that happen or whether it will just be a bottleneck.
Solicitor Bernard Matthews said no information would be suppressed and any supervisor would be free to speak to the press. It’s generous of him to allow that elected officials would maintain their constitutional right to free speech.
But what about the police chief or the public works supervisor? Those are positions that can have urgent situations and specialized information. Will police information be caught in a tug-of-war between the township’s PIO and the new Westmoreland County District Attorney spokesperson?
“There’s no law that governs what a PIO does. If they don’t want to call you back, they don’t have to,” Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association media law counsel Melissa Melewsky said.
It doesn’t quite sound like a way to facilitate the distribution of information.
That doesn’t mean Primm will be that kind of speed bump. He doesn’t have to be.
But if the supervisors are free to speak and restricting information isn’t the goal, it leaves one to wonder: Why is a PIO even needed?
Editor’s note: This editorial has been updated. A prior version noted 20 people in opposition. While 20 people were in attendance, only five spoke to the issue.