Private talks violated law, lawyer says
Evan Brandt , Mercury Staff Writer 07/07/2003
UPPER POTTSGROVE -- When Police Chief Charles Maddona asked the township
commissioners for permission to conduct background investigations on "all
people associated with the activities and functions of Upper Pottsgrove
Township," it was not a request made in public.
It was only when a newspaper published an article about the request that the
public became aware of it.
Also conducted without public scrutiny were two meetings by the Board of
Commissioners in which Maddona's letter was discussed. Those discussions
were held in closed-door meetings known in government parlance as executive
sessions.
And that in and of itself was a violation of Pennsylvania's open meetings
law, according to the general counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper
Association.
Township Solicitor James Scheffey, who advises the Board of Commissioners on
such matters, could not be reached for comment.
Township Commissioner Russell Noll said the executive sessions were not
called specifically to discuss Maddona's letter, but he confirmed that
discussion of it did come up.
Ken Iatesta, chairman of the Upper Pottsgrove Board of Commissioners,
confirmed the board reviewed Maddona's request in two closed meetings.
Citing the secrecy of executive sessions, he would not comment on the
content or direction of the discussions other than to say that "no decision
has been made."
But Corinna Wilson, general counsel to the Pennsylvania Newspaper
Association and an expert on the open meetings law, had no such
reservations.
"They should absolutely not be discussing something like this in executive
session," Wilson said.
The open meetings law allows government officials to meet in private "to
discuss personnel matters, including the hiring, promotion, disciplining or
dismissing of any specific prospective public officer or employee or current
public officer or employee employed or appointed by the agency."
But that's not what the commissioners were doing, Wilson said after being
contacted by a reporter.
"They are not discussing a particular employee; they are talking about a
policy which affects all employees," Wilson said. "A discussion like this
does not fit with the personnel exception at all."
The law also allows executive sessions "to review and discuss agency
business which, if reviewed or discussed in public, would lead to the
disclosure of information recognized as confidential or privileged under
law, including the initiation and conduct of investigations of possible
violations of the law and quasi-judicial deliberations."
This exception also does not apply, Wilson said, because the commissioners
are not discussing the specifics of one or two investigations, but a policy
of conducting many investigations.
"I don't think this falls into the investigations category either," Wilson
said. "That exception refers to a specific investigation, and that's not
what they're talking about here. They're talking about a policy of
conducting background investigations."
Wilson added, "The public has an absolute right to know about a policy like
this and to participate in the discussion."
There is no statutory penalty associated with violating Pennsylvania's open
meetings law.
Further, there is no agency designated to enforce it. Any violation must be
determined by a court, and the most frequent result is merely an order to
correct the behavior or to invalidate actions taken in closed meetings.
Although no decision on Maddona's investigations request has been made yet,
any vote must take place at a properly convened public meeting, according to
the open meetings law.
ŠThe Mercury 2003
Yes well one can never be too careful when policing those, "Mean Streets" of
Upper Pottsgrove.
JR