THE WATCHDOG: Chalfont on open records: No record, no problem
January 11, 2009
THE WATCHDOG BLOG
By Paul Muschick | Of The [Allentown] Morning Call
If you're an advocate of open government, you'll want to attend Tuesday's council meeting in Chalfont, central Bucks County.
The Borough Council may decide to stop taping its meetings. The debate follows a dispute over whether a tape of a previous meeting, which taxpayers asked to hear, is a public record.
Borough administrators don't want to give up that tape. They have concerns about whether the state's new Right-to-Know Law, which went into effect Jan. 1, would force them to give up tapes in the future.
Not taping meetings would end the debate.
That's legal, but not in the spirit of open government.
I haven't heard of any similar schemes in the Lehigh Valley. If you know about any, let me know.
Councilman Mitchell Meyerson alerted me to the controversy.
"The public needs to know that the long-fought fight for transparency in government is not over," he wrote in an e-mail. "Municipalities such as Chalfont are actively working to skirt the public's access."
He said Borough Manager Melissa Shafer sent him an e-mail Monday saying she and the solicitor decided to stop taping.
Shafer told me no final decision has been made, and council will have the final word.
Shafer said her concern is how the state's new Right-to-Know Law applies to recordings. She said meetings have been recorded only to transcribe minutes, not to keep as archives. Tapes are erased after minutes are approved.
"It was never intended to become public record," Shafer said. "It was never the intent to distribute those tapes."
That's not the intent behind a lot of government byproducts, such as recordings and reports. But state law requires many to be released, to give taxpayers confidence their governments are acting wisely.
The bigger question is this: What does Chalfont have to hide?
Anyone in attendance can record meetings. What happens isn't meant to be secret. That's why meetings are public.
In light of the debate, resident Ben Romano said he'll record meetings.
"If somebody needs a copy, they can ask me for it," he said.
Romano is author of the Chalfont Advocate, a blog that reports on the borough.
Based on the Chalfont shenanigans, it's time for lawmakers to rewrite the open meetings law, too. That law, the Sunshine Act, doesn't require public meetings to be recorded. It requires only that written minutes be kept.
Pennsylvania's Legislature should amend the law to require that meetings be recorded and archived. With digital technology, there's no reason they can't be.
Many governments tape meetings, including: Allentown, Bethlehem, the Bethlehem Area School Board and the counties of Bucks, Lehigh and Northampton.
I've listened to tapes in Northampton County and Allentown with no problems. If you've asked to listen to a tape and been rejected, let me know.
Harry and Anne Hassan and the Oxford Lane Homeowner's Association requested a copy of the Chalfont tape of the Nov. 18 meeting.
That's when council approved a development plan for a firehouse near the Hassans' and homeowner's association's property.
They are challenging the development in county court, and requested a copy of the tape in November, before expiration of the old Right-to-Know Law.
Their attorney, Christen Pionzio, believes the tape is public because portions of the more liberal new law had taken effect by then, including redefining a public record to include recordings.
Shafer denied the request after solicitor Dean Ibrahim told her case law doesn't consider audio tapes public.
Chalfont council later also voted not to release it, with Meyerson and Council President Robert Cleland supporting the release.
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, believes audio recordings are public under the new Right-to-Know Law.
She suggests, though, that the request for the tape be refiled now that the entire new law is in effect. The tape hasn't been erased.
Here's the kicker:
I'll concur for now that with dueling opinions from attorneys, it's not crystal clear the tape is public.
But the borough still could release it. The new Right-to-Know Law allows exempted information to be released if it's in the "public interest."
What could be more of public interest than the actions of a publicly elected council?
Shafer's response: The public interest isn't served if the tape is used in a lawsuit against the borough.
By Paul Muschick | Of The [Allentown] Morning Call
If you're an advocate of open government, you'll want to attend Tuesday's council meeting in Chalfont, central Bucks County.
The Borough Council may decide to stop taping its meetings. The debate follows a dispute over whether a tape of a previous meeting, which taxpayers asked to hear, is a public record.
Borough administrators don't want to give up that tape. They have concerns about whether the state's new Right-to-Know Law, which went into effect Jan. 1, would force them to give up tapes in the future.
Not taping meetings would end the debate.
That's legal, but not in the spirit of open government.
I haven't heard of any similar schemes in the Lehigh Valley. If you know about any, let me know.
Councilman Mitchell Meyerson alerted me to the controversy.
"The public needs to know that the long-fought fight for transparency in government is not over," he wrote in an e-mail. "Municipalities such as Chalfont are actively working to skirt the public's access."
He said Borough Manager Melissa Shafer sent him an e-mail Monday saying she and the solicitor decided to stop taping.
Shafer told me no final decision has been made, and council will have the final word.
Shafer said her concern is how the state's new Right-to-Know Law applies to recordings. She said meetings have been recorded only to transcribe minutes, not to keep as archives. Tapes are erased after minutes are approved.
"It was never intended to become public record," Shafer said. "It was never the intent to distribute those tapes."
That's not the intent behind a lot of government byproducts, such as recordings and reports. But state law requires many to be released, to give taxpayers confidence their governments are acting wisely.
The bigger question is this: What does Chalfont have to hide?
Anyone in attendance can record meetings. What happens isn't meant to be secret. That's why meetings are public.
In light of the debate, resident Ben Romano said he'll record meetings.
"If somebody needs a copy, they can ask me for it," he said.
Romano is author of the Chalfont Advocate, a blog that reports on the borough.
Based on the Chalfont shenanigans, it's time for lawmakers to rewrite the open meetings law, too. That law, the Sunshine Act, doesn't require public meetings to be recorded. It requires only that written minutes be kept.
Pennsylvania's Legislature should amend the law to require that meetings be recorded and archived. With digital technology, there's no reason they can't be.
Many governments tape meetings, including: Allentown, Bethlehem, the Bethlehem Area School Board and the counties of Bucks, Lehigh and Northampton.
I've listened to tapes in Northampton County and Allentown with no problems. If you've asked to listen to a tape and been rejected, let me know.
Harry and Anne Hassan and the Oxford Lane Homeowner's Association requested a copy of the Chalfont tape of the Nov. 18 meeting.
That's when council approved a development plan for a firehouse near the Hassans' and homeowner's association's property.
They are challenging the development in county court, and requested a copy of the tape in November, before expiration of the old Right-to-Know Law.
Their attorney, Christen Pionzio, believes the tape is public because portions of the more liberal new law had taken effect by then, including redefining a public record to include recordings.
Shafer denied the request after solicitor Dean Ibrahim told her case law doesn't consider audio tapes public.
Chalfont council later also voted not to release it, with Meyerson and Council President Robert Cleland supporting the release.
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, believes audio recordings are public under the new Right-to-Know Law.
She suggests, though, that the request for the tape be refiled now that the entire new law is in effect. The tape hasn't been erased.
Here's the kicker:
I'll concur for now that with dueling opinions from attorneys, it's not crystal clear the tape is public.
But the borough still could release it. The new Right-to-Know Law allows exempted information to be released if it's in the "public interest."
What could be more of public interest than the actions of a publicly elected council?
Shafer's response: The public interest isn't served if the tape is used in a lawsuit against the borough.
