Vote to keep committee meetings private breaks down along party lines
By Cheryl Allison
The Main Line Times
ARDMORE — The Lower Merion Board of Commissioners will keep its Ad Hoc Budget Committee, and it will keep that committee’s meetings closed to the public.
That was the answer to a citizen’s open-meetings challenge in a lengthy discussion Wednesday night.
It was a split decision, one that broke with painful clarity along party lines.
Commissioner Jenny Brown and her four Republican colleagues voted in favor of her motion to maintain the committee, but to open its meetings to citizens and the press. All eight of the Democratic commissioners who were present - Commissioner Brian Gordon was absent - voted in opposition, allowing the proposal to fail.
The Ad Hoc Budget Committee, comprised of seven members of the board - one less than a quorum - meets monthly throughout the year with Township Manager Douglas Cleland and finance staff to study budget-related topics.
Last month, Bryn Mawr resident Audrey Romasco challenged its practice of meeting in private, saying that it may violate Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act.
In response to the challenge, the committee cancelled its Feb. 18 meeting, but scheduled this week’s public discussion of the panel’s role and future status, and whether meetings should be opened.
In her comments, Brown, who is a member of the committee, said she believes it has “gone beyond” its informal role of providing staff with budget “feedback” in the past year. Other Republican members said they wished to err on the side of transparency, and that virtually all of the committee’s activities could and should take place in public.
Democratic commissioners said the group has no authority to make decisions and does not engage in decision-making, but is needed as a “sounding board” for Cleland and staff to toss out ideas that, as committee Chairman Cheryl Gelber put it, “may never go any further.”
Most agreed that more discussions could be shifted to the public forum, and in fact several items that might formerly have been broached to the ad hoc group were presented during the public meeting last week. Those commissioners continued to say, however, that the airing of some ideas, insofar as they involve staffing options, could be upsetting to township personnel and destructive to morale.
Romasco, who maintains that such general staffing discussions do not rise to the level of privileged personnel issues, eligible for discussion in private, said that she will attend the next committee meeting, when it is scheduled, and again request to be admitted. Gelber said this week that a meeting date has not been set; it could be later this month or early April.
If she is turned away, she said the next step would be to challenge the closed meetings in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
In her complaint, Romasco, a former public official in Massachusetts, said that the board’s own remarks have suggested that the committee’s role is somewhat different than has been represented. In budget discussions late last year, commissioners noted that various topics had been considered, even “vetted,” by the Ad Hoc Budget and similar Ad Hoc Capital Improvement Plan committees. In making her motion, Brown noted that the committee had made recommendations which were presented to the full board regarding potential spending reductions.
Township solicitor Gilbert High, however, said that “the critical aspect is whether the group is empowered to render decisions on behalf of the agency,” that is, the board of commissioners. In committee meetings, “Individual commissioners make recommendations to staff,” he said, but, “There is no duty, no charge on the part of commissioners to do anything on behalf of the board.”
High went on to say, however, that, while the township may be in compliance with sunshine laws, that “doesn’t mean the public has to be excluded.” The board “has to make a policy decision whether the public is invited” to these or other ad hoc committee meetings, he said.
That is where commissioners took widely different views. “It’s not can we but should we keep it out of the public,” Brown said. “I think having the public in our meetings is something to be embraced rather than feared.”
“I think we can do more . . . in having an open budget process. Citizens who face the possibility of higher taxes should have the opportunity to hear what we go through,” agreed Commissioner Scott Zelov. “By having [discussions] in public, everybody will see the tremendous challenges in trying to make savings.”
Fellow Republican Lewis Gould, the board’s senior member and one who has seen the budget committee function over a number of years, said he had “vacillated” on the issue. “I don’t fear the public ever, but I do believe there are instances where the board has to have the ability to speak in private,” he said. “The question is whether the Ad Hoc Budget Committee is one. The answer, in general, is no.”
In the end, Gould said, he has “no problem” with opening meetings, but is realistic. “I suspect before long there will be few if any [citizens] who will come,” he said, but in the meantime “Let those come who want.”
“There has to be a mechanism [for confidential discussions], some level of a forum for ideas to be brought forth,” countered Commissioner Mark Taylor, a Democratic member of the committee. “We need to do a better job of segregating” those sensitive items, he allowed, but said that discussion and deliberation “are not the same.”
“Ad hoc committees are a place where ideas get thrown around,” said Commissioner Paul McElhaney, who chairs the capital plan committee. A particular concern, he said, was dealing with the two employee unions, who, he suggested, “may start lobbying us” over ideas that might affect staff. “We don’t need to be putting out a fire that may never come to fruition.”
“It’s not a question of whether the public is involved, but when,” said board President Bruce Reed. On a similar point, “We cannot put ourselves in a position that is injurious” to negotiations, he said. “We can’t elevate transparency to the point that it does injury.”
Hearing some of those comments, Romasco, during public comment, reflected, “There are 59,000 people in Lower Merion Township. What I hear tonight is worry about stressing out 400 employees.”
“My core appeal,” she said, “is on the common sense question: How do you serve your constituents better by keeping them in the dark?”
Another speaker, Mike Berry of Penn Wynne, said he looked at the issue from two perspectives. As a resident, in these economic times, when “you’re asking people to make sacrifices” with rising taxes, “I’m outraged that we’re even having this discussion,” he said.
Berry is also a First Amendment attorney. From that viewpoint, he said, “The purpose of the Sunshine Act is crystal clear; secrecy in public affairs undermines public confidence.”
As it has been described, he said, the budget committee “clearly renders advice on agency business. Deliberation does mean discussion, and discussion of agency business is subject to the Sunshine Act.”
“You don’t have a choice,” Berry told the board. “The choice has already been made for you by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.”
“We obviously have a difference in interpretation of the law,” High responded.
The Main Line Times
ARDMORE — The Lower Merion Board of Commissioners will keep its Ad Hoc Budget Committee, and it will keep that committee’s meetings closed to the public.
That was the answer to a citizen’s open-meetings challenge in a lengthy discussion Wednesday night.
It was a split decision, one that broke with painful clarity along party lines.
Commissioner Jenny Brown and her four Republican colleagues voted in favor of her motion to maintain the committee, but to open its meetings to citizens and the press. All eight of the Democratic commissioners who were present - Commissioner Brian Gordon was absent - voted in opposition, allowing the proposal to fail.
The Ad Hoc Budget Committee, comprised of seven members of the board - one less than a quorum - meets monthly throughout the year with Township Manager Douglas Cleland and finance staff to study budget-related topics.
Last month, Bryn Mawr resident Audrey Romasco challenged its practice of meeting in private, saying that it may violate Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act.
In response to the challenge, the committee cancelled its Feb. 18 meeting, but scheduled this week’s public discussion of the panel’s role and future status, and whether meetings should be opened.
In her comments, Brown, who is a member of the committee, said she believes it has “gone beyond” its informal role of providing staff with budget “feedback” in the past year. Other Republican members said they wished to err on the side of transparency, and that virtually all of the committee’s activities could and should take place in public.
Democratic commissioners said the group has no authority to make decisions and does not engage in decision-making, but is needed as a “sounding board” for Cleland and staff to toss out ideas that, as committee Chairman Cheryl Gelber put it, “may never go any further.”
Most agreed that more discussions could be shifted to the public forum, and in fact several items that might formerly have been broached to the ad hoc group were presented during the public meeting last week. Those commissioners continued to say, however, that the airing of some ideas, insofar as they involve staffing options, could be upsetting to township personnel and destructive to morale.
Romasco, who maintains that such general staffing discussions do not rise to the level of privileged personnel issues, eligible for discussion in private, said that she will attend the next committee meeting, when it is scheduled, and again request to be admitted. Gelber said this week that a meeting date has not been set; it could be later this month or early April.
If she is turned away, she said the next step would be to challenge the closed meetings in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas.
In her complaint, Romasco, a former public official in Massachusetts, said that the board’s own remarks have suggested that the committee’s role is somewhat different than has been represented. In budget discussions late last year, commissioners noted that various topics had been considered, even “vetted,” by the Ad Hoc Budget and similar Ad Hoc Capital Improvement Plan committees. In making her motion, Brown noted that the committee had made recommendations which were presented to the full board regarding potential spending reductions.
Township solicitor Gilbert High, however, said that “the critical aspect is whether the group is empowered to render decisions on behalf of the agency,” that is, the board of commissioners. In committee meetings, “Individual commissioners make recommendations to staff,” he said, but, “There is no duty, no charge on the part of commissioners to do anything on behalf of the board.”
High went on to say, however, that, while the township may be in compliance with sunshine laws, that “doesn’t mean the public has to be excluded.” The board “has to make a policy decision whether the public is invited” to these or other ad hoc committee meetings, he said.
That is where commissioners took widely different views. “It’s not can we but should we keep it out of the public,” Brown said. “I think having the public in our meetings is something to be embraced rather than feared.”
“I think we can do more . . . in having an open budget process. Citizens who face the possibility of higher taxes should have the opportunity to hear what we go through,” agreed Commissioner Scott Zelov. “By having [discussions] in public, everybody will see the tremendous challenges in trying to make savings.”
Fellow Republican Lewis Gould, the board’s senior member and one who has seen the budget committee function over a number of years, said he had “vacillated” on the issue. “I don’t fear the public ever, but I do believe there are instances where the board has to have the ability to speak in private,” he said. “The question is whether the Ad Hoc Budget Committee is one. The answer, in general, is no.”
In the end, Gould said, he has “no problem” with opening meetings, but is realistic. “I suspect before long there will be few if any [citizens] who will come,” he said, but in the meantime “Let those come who want.”
“There has to be a mechanism [for confidential discussions], some level of a forum for ideas to be brought forth,” countered Commissioner Mark Taylor, a Democratic member of the committee. “We need to do a better job of segregating” those sensitive items, he allowed, but said that discussion and deliberation “are not the same.”
“Ad hoc committees are a place where ideas get thrown around,” said Commissioner Paul McElhaney, who chairs the capital plan committee. A particular concern, he said, was dealing with the two employee unions, who, he suggested, “may start lobbying us” over ideas that might affect staff. “We don’t need to be putting out a fire that may never come to fruition.”
“It’s not a question of whether the public is involved, but when,” said board President Bruce Reed. On a similar point, “We cannot put ourselves in a position that is injurious” to negotiations, he said. “We can’t elevate transparency to the point that it does injury.”
Hearing some of those comments, Romasco, during public comment, reflected, “There are 59,000 people in Lower Merion Township. What I hear tonight is worry about stressing out 400 employees.”
“My core appeal,” she said, “is on the common sense question: How do you serve your constituents better by keeping them in the dark?”
Another speaker, Mike Berry of Penn Wynne, said he looked at the issue from two perspectives. As a resident, in these economic times, when “you’re asking people to make sacrifices” with rising taxes, “I’m outraged that we’re even having this discussion,” he said.
Berry is also a First Amendment attorney. From that viewpoint, he said, “The purpose of the Sunshine Act is crystal clear; secrecy in public affairs undermines public confidence.”
As it has been described, he said, the budget committee “clearly renders advice on agency business. Deliberation does mean discussion, and discussion of agency business is subject to the Sunshine Act.”
“You don’t have a choice,” Berry told the board. “The choice has already been made for you by the legislature and signed into law by the governor.”
“We obviously have a difference in interpretation of the law,” High responded.
