Judge hears testimony on Chrin deal / Suit: Williams Twp. violated Sunshine Act
By Riley Yates | Of The Morning Call
For more than year, Williams Township supervisors and top officials met behind closed doors over Chrin Brothers landfill, one of the township's largest sources of revenue. They kept no minutes, took no notes, and never explicitly told the public that representatives from the company also had seats at the table.
Were the meetings a violation of the state's Sunshine Act, which requires that public business be conducted in public? Or were they legitimate executive sessions on matters that can be legally discussed outside the public eye?
Those are questions before Northampton County Judge Anthony Beltrami, who on Wednesday heard testimony in a suit by a grass-roots group that charges Williams supervisors improperly met with Chrin from January 2007 to January 2008 to hash out a far-reaching agreement over a controversial proposal to expand the landfill.
The Committee to Save Williams Township sued supervisors in February 2008 over the meetings. Eight months later, the board unanimously agreed to rezone land to allow Chrin to expand, in exchange for $200,000 and a doubling of the company's annual waste disposal payments.
Malcolm Gross, the attorney for the grass-roots committee, said there is no provision in the Sunshine Act to allow supervisors to privately negotiate the host fees the township receives. He said he has never seen a case in which a community violated the open meeting law as many times as he charged Williams did.
He pointed to 13 advertised executive sessions, plus four or five that apparently were never publicly posted, and the many draft agreements that were discussed throughout.
''You had more meetings with Chrin in private than [supervisors] had in public for the entire year, correct?'' Gross asked board Chairwoman Sally Hixson.
''That would be correct,'' Hixson responded.
But Hixson and other township officials insisted there was nothing untoward about the sessions. They said the meetings centered on settling a zoning lawsuit of Chrin's, and fell under the Sunshine Act's exemptions for talks on litigation, real estate deals and some confidential matters.
The host fees were ''inextricably intertwined'' with the lawsuit settlement, said James Kutz, the attorney representing Williams.
''There never was an intent to deliberate in private. There never was an intent to take formal action in private,'' Kutz said. ''We never had a deal. We never had a resolution. We never reached a point where we reached agreement with Chrin.''
The settlement wasn't approved until October, when it was unveiled and voted on in public. Township solicitor Brian Monahan said it came only after negotiations restarted in the middle of 2008. Just one supervisor sat in on those talks, avoiding a quorum.
The deal between Chrin and Williams would end a 2006 suit in which the company claimed Williams' zoning unfairly prevented a mobile home development. The settlement remains in limbo, pending the grass-roots committee's suit.
The committee is asking Beltrami to void supervisors' approval of the pact, and to award them attorneys fees.
For more than year, Williams Township supervisors and top officials met behind closed doors over Chrin Brothers landfill, one of the township's largest sources of revenue. They kept no minutes, took no notes, and never explicitly told the public that representatives from the company also had seats at the table.
Were the meetings a violation of the state's Sunshine Act, which requires that public business be conducted in public? Or were they legitimate executive sessions on matters that can be legally discussed outside the public eye?
Those are questions before Northampton County Judge Anthony Beltrami, who on Wednesday heard testimony in a suit by a grass-roots group that charges Williams supervisors improperly met with Chrin from January 2007 to January 2008 to hash out a far-reaching agreement over a controversial proposal to expand the landfill.
The Committee to Save Williams Township sued supervisors in February 2008 over the meetings. Eight months later, the board unanimously agreed to rezone land to allow Chrin to expand, in exchange for $200,000 and a doubling of the company's annual waste disposal payments.
Malcolm Gross, the attorney for the grass-roots committee, said there is no provision in the Sunshine Act to allow supervisors to privately negotiate the host fees the township receives. He said he has never seen a case in which a community violated the open meeting law as many times as he charged Williams did.
He pointed to 13 advertised executive sessions, plus four or five that apparently were never publicly posted, and the many draft agreements that were discussed throughout.
''You had more meetings with Chrin in private than [supervisors] had in public for the entire year, correct?'' Gross asked board Chairwoman Sally Hixson.
''That would be correct,'' Hixson responded.
But Hixson and other township officials insisted there was nothing untoward about the sessions. They said the meetings centered on settling a zoning lawsuit of Chrin's, and fell under the Sunshine Act's exemptions for talks on litigation, real estate deals and some confidential matters.
The host fees were ''inextricably intertwined'' with the lawsuit settlement, said James Kutz, the attorney representing Williams.
''There never was an intent to deliberate in private. There never was an intent to take formal action in private,'' Kutz said. ''We never had a deal. We never had a resolution. We never reached a point where we reached agreement with Chrin.''
The settlement wasn't approved until October, when it was unveiled and voted on in public. Township solicitor Brian Monahan said it came only after negotiations restarted in the middle of 2008. Just one supervisor sat in on those talks, avoiding a quorum.
The deal between Chrin and Williams would end a 2006 suit in which the company claimed Williams' zoning unfairly prevented a mobile home development. The settlement remains in limbo, pending the grass-roots committee's suit.
The committee is asking Beltrami to void supervisors' approval of the pact, and to award them attorneys fees.
