Emergency planners say giving details is dangerous. Advocates of disclosure say it would prevent waste.

With little or no public scrutiny, emergency planners across Pennsylvania are spending tens of millions of dollars in federal counterterrorism money on a wide array of equipment, from RV-size command centers, SUVs and boats to protective gear, cell phones and biohazard detection devices.

Some of the aid is being spent on equipment much more likely to be used to meet run-of-the-mill public safety needs than to help fight terrorism, like the courthouse X-ray machine being purchased by Monroe County.

Yet as emergency wish lists are being checked off, the public is getting little information on how the money is being allocated - even as the pipeline of federal money flowing into Pennsylvania has grown to more than a quarter-billion dollars.

State and regional emergency management coordinators have decided, for the most part, that it is too dangerous to provide a detailed accounting of where the money is going, either for equipment purchases, training or administrative costs. They cite fears they could expose weaknesses to terrorists or others bent on causing trouble.

"Security reasons"

The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA), which must approve each expenditure, declined a request filed by the Associated Press under the state's Right-to-Know law to detail expenses since 2003, when the federal government began funding homeland security in earnest.

The agency cited "security reasons" in its denial.

And only one of the state's nine regional counterterrorism task forces, the northwest task force, would provide the AP with a fully itemized account of how it is using its share of the grant money.

"We don't want to broadcast our shortcomings or our vulnerabilities," said Ted Wise, the emergency management director in Cumberland County and chairman of the eight-county south-central task force.

Advocates of greater public disclosure argue that such secrecy fosters waste.

"Secrecy typically hides inefficiency, mismanagement, and sometimes corruption," said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington government watchdog group.

U.S. Sens. Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, both Republicans, said through aides that they understood the general need to withhold information for security reasons, but would be monitoring the actions of PEMA.

GAO report due

Congressional investigators may shed light on how well some programs are being operated. In the coming weeks, the Government Accountability Office is scheduled to release a report on how the counterterrorism funds are being spent and what kind of planning is involved. It studied five states, including Pennsylvania.

The AP contacted all of the state's regional counterterrorism task forces to see what kind of information they would make public. Most of the task forces, which coordinate coverage by police and fire departments in their regions, were willing to discuss only some aspects of spending - with varying reasons for the secrecy...

"We have to balance the need to know of the press and public with what we believe is actually in the best interest of public safety, which is not providing information to people who could conceivably do the commonwealth harm," said Adrian King, the state's emergency management director.

Many did not want to discuss where equipment was being housed or what kind of devices they had purchased to detect chemical, biological or radioactive agents. One did not want to get into specifics of security measures in a public building.

King said PEMA audits all the spending, with some federal oversight, and that all purchases and training must fix weaknesses identified in an assessment conducted in 2003. Federal spending guidelines require that the money be used to improve capabilities to prevent and respond to terrorist acts, but bar spending on weapons, construction, or the salaries and benefits of emergency responders...

Pennsylvania has received $280 million in counterterrorism money for federal fiscal years 2003 to 2005. The figure represents a huge increase in aid since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

At least 40 percent of the 2003 grant of $89 million has been spent. Because the process of purchasing and receiving equipment can take months or years, much of the 2004 appropriation remains unspent. The 2005 dollars have not arrived.

More heavily populated areas get more money, as do areas with more sensitive infrastructure and facilities, such as government offices or nuclear power plants. More than half of the money is supposed to go toward equipment. PEMA and the regional task forces can spend the rest on planning, training and administrative costs, including the cost to respond to an elevated federal terror alert.

Overall, emergency management officials say they have used the money to greatly improve the state's ability to respond to an attack, but that billions more would be needed to fill every gap in coverage.

Perhaps the most expensive purchase being looked at is a proposed $7 million radio communication system in the Philadelphia region that would link, on the same frequency, emergency management officials and first responders in 10 New Jersey and Pennsylvania counties.

Other purchases and orders disclosed by emergency management officials include a $1.8 million boat for the Philadelphia Fire Department to fight maritime fires and make river rescues. And the Philadelphia Police Department wants to equip the video cameras on its two helicopters with infrared capability to improve night vision.

Some task forces are buying pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles to pull trailers full of newly purchased decontamination, bomb-handling, and search and rescue equipment. They also buy little things, too: Tyvek boot covers for 75 cents each and $20 rolls of tape emblazoned with a radiation symbol and the words, "Caution: radiation area"...

Larry Frankel, the legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, said the public has a right to monitor how all the money is being spent.

"I don't believe that we should have a 'just trust us' attitude that the money is being spent wisely and on the most serious security concerns," Frankel said. "Those should be matters for public discussion and debate... . This is an area that the legislature should be willing to take a look at at this point. It's our money."

By Marc Levy, Associated Press, Philly.com, Jan. 24, 2005

Back to News in Brief