Suit seeks open forum, says Gettysburg violated Sunshine Law
May 21, 2009 Sunshine Act | Gettysburg
By ERIN JAMES
The Evening Sun
A Cumberland Township supervisor has filed suit against the Gettysburg Borough Council for alleged violations of the state's Sunshine Law and has asked the Adams County Court of Common Pleas to declare null and void any actions taken when those alleged violations occurred.
Debi Golden objects to the borough's policy not to advertise its ordinance committee meetings to the public - thereby excluding the public from attending meetings and hearing deliberations.
"The Ad Hoc Ordinance Committee has been deliberating, acting upon and making policy in closed, private meetings since April 2008," according to Golden's complaint.
Golden said she has requested to attend those committee meetings but has been denied.
"I would say they stubbornly rejected my request to attend the meetings when it would have been just simple to open the meetings," she said.
Though not residents of the borough, Golden and her husband Gene Golden have for years expressed opposition to regulations of the borough's current sign ordinance. Together they own Gettysburg Signs, located in the borough, and they have alleged parts of the sign ordinance are unconstitutional and violate business owners' First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Last year, the borough created an ordinance committee to review and update all of the borough's ordinances - including the sign ordinance. Three members of the Borough Council sit on the committee, but all meetings have been held privately.
"The chairman has been on the record several times as just stating that he does not want to be bothered with the public's ideas," Golden said. "And that's why he wants these meetings to be private. And I contend that that's exactly the reason why the Sunshine Law was enacted."
All nine Borough Council members and Solicitor Harry Eastman are named as defendants in Golden's lawsuit.
Reached by phone Wednesday, Councilman John Butterfield - who chairs the ordinance committee - declined to comment on Golden's allegations.
"We have a pending lawsuit, and that means no comment," Butterfield said.
Councilman Ted Streeter, who is a member of the committee, also declined to comment. He said council members have been instructed by borough Solicitor Harry Eastman not to comment publicly.
Eastman could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Golden announced her intention to file a lawsuit last week, when she spoke at the May 11 Borough Council meeting. She said she would file suit if the borough's policy was not reversed within five days.
At that time, Butterfield did respond on the record, saying the ordinance committee has acted on the advice of the its solicitor, who Butterfield said has interpreted the Sunshine Law to exempt ordinance-committee meetings from advertising.
That's because there is not a quorum of council members present at the meetings, Butterfield said.
"There's nothing secretive. This is simply a working group who is trying to update some of these old ordinances that we have had and are trying to bring into the 21st century," he said. "I think a lot more is being made of this than perhaps should."
But Golden said Wednesday that she believes the public at least has the right to hear elected officials debate policy changes.
"I see no harm in allowing the public to be in," she said.
In her lawsuit, for which Golden has not hired an attorney, she cites the Sunshine Law's requirement that citizens have a right "to have notice of and the right to attend all meetings of agencies at which any agency business is discussed or acted upon."
A quorum of committee members - not the entire Borough Council - constitutes an official meeting, Golden contends in court documents.
She is seeking a reversal of the borough's current policy, a declaration that actions taken in closed meetings are null and void, payment of court costs and "any and all other relief that this Court deems appropriate."
Some of the action taken by the ordinance committee thus far includes reviews and proposed changes to the Borough Council's rules and regulations, the borough's animals ordinance, loitering ordinance and recycling ordinance.
Action was later taken on each of those matters by the full Borough Council at regular meetings.
If the court rules in Golden's favor, the defendants could be found guilty of a summary offense and ordered to pay a fine of $100 plus costs of prosecution, according to the Sunshine Law.
The Evening Sun
A Cumberland Township supervisor has filed suit against the Gettysburg Borough Council for alleged violations of the state's Sunshine Law and has asked the Adams County Court of Common Pleas to declare null and void any actions taken when those alleged violations occurred.
Debi Golden objects to the borough's policy not to advertise its ordinance committee meetings to the public - thereby excluding the public from attending meetings and hearing deliberations.
"The Ad Hoc Ordinance Committee has been deliberating, acting upon and making policy in closed, private meetings since April 2008," according to Golden's complaint.
Golden said she has requested to attend those committee meetings but has been denied.
"I would say they stubbornly rejected my request to attend the meetings when it would have been just simple to open the meetings," she said.
Though not residents of the borough, Golden and her husband Gene Golden have for years expressed opposition to regulations of the borough's current sign ordinance. Together they own Gettysburg Signs, located in the borough, and they have alleged parts of the sign ordinance are unconstitutional and violate business owners' First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Last year, the borough created an ordinance committee to review and update all of the borough's ordinances - including the sign ordinance. Three members of the Borough Council sit on the committee, but all meetings have been held privately.
"The chairman has been on the record several times as just stating that he does not want to be bothered with the public's ideas," Golden said. "And that's why he wants these meetings to be private. And I contend that that's exactly the reason why the Sunshine Law was enacted."
All nine Borough Council members and Solicitor Harry Eastman are named as defendants in Golden's lawsuit.
Reached by phone Wednesday, Councilman John Butterfield - who chairs the ordinance committee - declined to comment on Golden's allegations.
"We have a pending lawsuit, and that means no comment," Butterfield said.
Councilman Ted Streeter, who is a member of the committee, also declined to comment. He said council members have been instructed by borough Solicitor Harry Eastman not to comment publicly.
Eastman could not be reached for comment Wednesday.
Golden announced her intention to file a lawsuit last week, when she spoke at the May 11 Borough Council meeting. She said she would file suit if the borough's policy was not reversed within five days.
At that time, Butterfield did respond on the record, saying the ordinance committee has acted on the advice of the its solicitor, who Butterfield said has interpreted the Sunshine Law to exempt ordinance-committee meetings from advertising.
That's because there is not a quorum of council members present at the meetings, Butterfield said.
"There's nothing secretive. This is simply a working group who is trying to update some of these old ordinances that we have had and are trying to bring into the 21st century," he said. "I think a lot more is being made of this than perhaps should."
But Golden said Wednesday that she believes the public at least has the right to hear elected officials debate policy changes.
"I see no harm in allowing the public to be in," she said.
In her lawsuit, for which Golden has not hired an attorney, she cites the Sunshine Law's requirement that citizens have a right "to have notice of and the right to attend all meetings of agencies at which any agency business is discussed or acted upon."
A quorum of committee members - not the entire Borough Council - constitutes an official meeting, Golden contends in court documents.
She is seeking a reversal of the borough's current policy, a declaration that actions taken in closed meetings are null and void, payment of court costs and "any and all other relief that this Court deems appropriate."
Some of the action taken by the ordinance committee thus far includes reviews and proposed changes to the Borough Council's rules and regulations, the borough's animals ordinance, loitering ordinance and recycling ordinance.
Action was later taken on each of those matters by the full Borough Council at regular meetings.
If the court rules in Golden's favor, the defendants could be found guilty of a summary offense and ordered to pay a fine of $100 plus costs of prosecution, according to the Sunshine Law.
