Nov 23, 2016 3 min read

Before carving up the Thanksgiving Day turkey, Gov. Tom Wolf sunk a knife into a measure that overwhelmingly passed both the state House and Senate that would have allowed the identities of police officers who kill civilians in the line of duty to have their identities withheld. It surely will not endear the governor to the police unions or members of the public who supported the bill, but it was the correct call to make.

Getting through both bodies by veto-proof majorities, the bill would have allowed police departments to withhold the names of officers who kill civilians in the course of their jobs, whether through the use of a gun or some other means, for 30 days after the incident, or until an investigation is completed. Divulging the name of an officer before that point would have been classified as a second-degree misdemeanor.

The proposed law had some caveats attached. An officer’s name would have been revealed, for instance, if he or she had been charged with a crime. It also could have emerged as a result of a court order, or with an officer’s consent. A district attorney or the commonwealth’s attorney general would have also had the right to release the name.

But the bill would have overridden the policies of local police departments that have put their own rules in place when it comes to releasing the names of officers. Moreover, it would have been a blow to transparency, something there needs to be more of, not less of, at all levels of government.

In his veto message, Wolf emphasized his concern for the safety of police, but stated that “government works best when trust and openness exist between citizens and their government, and as such, I cannot sign into a law a policy that will enshrine the withholding of information in the public interest.”

He also pointed out that when police use deadly force, it demands “utmost transparency, otherwise a harmful mistrust will grow between police officers and the communities they protect and serve.”

Indeed, if Wolf had signed the bill, it would have put Pennsylvania out of step with other communities that have decided in the wake of unrest in places like Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., that more candor and less obfuscation is the best approach. In fact, revealing the names of officers who use deadly force could calm troubled waters, and reassure residents that their police departments are accountable and working in their best interests.

Supporters of the bill argued that instituting a 30-day blackout following the deadly use of force would ensure that officers and their families are protected from anyone seeking revenge. But Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law already allows officials to withhold information if it is determined its release would endanger someone’s safety or life. The proposed law was redundant and unnecessary.

It should be noted that state Rep. John Maher, who represents Peters Township and other parts of the South Hills, was one of only two Republicans in the House to vote against the bill. He deserves credit for standing up for transparency.

In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and other protests against police brutality, the debate has too often devolved into finger-pointing and rigid absolutism. This shouldn’t be the case. You can appreciate and support the work that police do in our communities without qualification while, at the same time, recognizing that the power they have needs to be tempered with accountability. The bill that Wolf vetoed would have eroded this principle.