There is a thick piece of steak sitting on the table for state senators when they get back to Harrisburg tomorrow.

Senate Bill 1 is a drastic revision of the state's 50-year-old misnomer of an open records law, and there is a lot of meat in it. The bill, passed unanimously by the House before both chambers left for their December vacation, would mean that records of municipal agencies and the legislative and executive branches, as well as financial records of the judiciary, would be presumed open. E-mail records would be included. Agencies would be limited to five days to respond to requests and be subject to monetary penalties for violations. And Pitt, Penn State and other state-related universities would face new reporting requirements.

Is it enough? It's close, but like that steak, it could use some seasoning -- minimal changes that shouldn't derail efforts to get an open records law enacted this month.

We're not talking about wholesale revisions in the bill, and we certainly don't want to jeopardize the advances that have been made in inching this measure forward. But, given that leadership in both the Republican-controlled Senate and the Democratic-controlled House have vowed to pass a strong new law quickly, why not make some final positive tweaks?

A provision in the bill that should be corrected is the one that takes autopsy records -- currently open to the public -- and slams the door shut on them. If you want to know what difference that makes, ask Drew Whitley. He spent nearly 18 years in prison for a murder until DNA testing cleared him. Mr. Whitley was freed because Post-Gazette reporter Bill Moushey was able to examine reports and records from what then was the Allegheny County coroner's office. It's important to preserve the safeguard that allows the public to check on the work of its coroners and medical examiners.

The House also added language that means dates of birth and telephone numbers won't be part of public records. Imagine you are a law-abiding citizen named John Jones who lives Downtown, not far from a ne'er-do-well who is also named John Jones but who is 10 years younger. Wouldn't you want the newspaper report of his arrest to include his age, eliminating those pesky questions at work the next morning? This provision should be fixed as well.

As a regional source of news and information, the Post-Gazette will always rely heavily on public records to do its job of reporting on the operations of government to the community. Understandably, we will always have a long wish list on this topic. Why shouldn't recordings of 911 calls be open on a case-by-case basis, as are the transcripts of those calls? Why are fees charged for records? Some of these arguments can wait for another day.

Once Pennsylvania has a modern, comprehensive law, updates can be handled on a piecemeal basis. For now, we're anxious to see a law designed for the 21st century get on the books.