Court strikes down Phila. council comment practice
MARK SCOLFORO | Associated Press
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Philadelphia City Council must allow direct public comment on matters under its consideration and may not simply divert those comments to committee meetings, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled.
The council's current practice of not allowing comment at its full-body meetings violates the Sunshine Act, the justices ruled 4-3 on Wednesday.
Read the ruling
"Contrary to council's position, there simply is no authorization in the act, actual or fairly implied, for delegation of the obligation to entertain public comment to some body other than a board or council," Justice Thomas Saylor wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a former Philadelphia district attorney, warned in the dissent that the ruling will likely cause disruption by changing a policy that dates back nearly 60 years.
"I do not view the act as intending to preclude the governing bodies of political subdivisions, such as council, from delegating certain aspects of its business to committees which may be tasked with receiving public comment in an efficient manner," Castille wrote.
The court ruled in favor of Stan Alekseev and the Homeowner's Association of Philadelphia, which challenged the council's practice. Their attorney, Darrell M. Zaslow, said people have the right to address their elected officials directly and seek to persuade them on matters under consideration.
"Every municipality in the state, from Pittsburgh on down to the small municipalities, they all have accommodated themselves to hear from the public," Zaslow said. "And Philadelphia is no different from Pittsburgh or Erie or Scranton or Reading or any borough or township."
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said governmental bodies around the state have varying practices for taking public comment, including limiting it to residents and taxpayers, setting time restrictions that can be as little as one minute per speaker, and scheduling comment at the start of a meeting.
She said problems with boisterous or lengthy comment periods do occur, but are rare, and often take place when particularly divisive issues are on the agenda.
"Are there a lot of people there with a lot of opinions? Yeah, sure, but that's their right. That's the beauty of living in a democratic society," she said.
Richard Feder, chief deputy for appeals in the city's law department, said lawyers are considering options, including whether to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider.
"I think this will call for a duplicative public comment period," Feder said. "It's not so much chaos as the city already provides for excellent public comment."
Feder said the city council will have to work out the mechanics of complying with the ruling.
"The city will do what the Supreme Court told them they have to do," he said.
© 2010 The Associated Press – Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — The Philadelphia City Council must allow direct public comment on matters under its consideration and may not simply divert those comments to committee meetings, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled.
The council's current practice of not allowing comment at its full-body meetings violates the Sunshine Act, the justices ruled 4-3 on Wednesday.
Read the ruling
"Contrary to council's position, there simply is no authorization in the act, actual or fairly implied, for delegation of the obligation to entertain public comment to some body other than a board or council," Justice Thomas Saylor wrote for the majority.
Chief Justice Ronald Castille, a former Philadelphia district attorney, warned in the dissent that the ruling will likely cause disruption by changing a policy that dates back nearly 60 years.
"I do not view the act as intending to preclude the governing bodies of political subdivisions, such as council, from delegating certain aspects of its business to committees which may be tasked with receiving public comment in an efficient manner," Castille wrote.
The court ruled in favor of Stan Alekseev and the Homeowner's Association of Philadelphia, which challenged the council's practice. Their attorney, Darrell M. Zaslow, said people have the right to address their elected officials directly and seek to persuade them on matters under consideration.
"Every municipality in the state, from Pittsburgh on down to the small municipalities, they all have accommodated themselves to hear from the public," Zaslow said. "And Philadelphia is no different from Pittsburgh or Erie or Scranton or Reading or any borough or township."
Melissa Bevan Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said governmental bodies around the state have varying practices for taking public comment, including limiting it to residents and taxpayers, setting time restrictions that can be as little as one minute per speaker, and scheduling comment at the start of a meeting.
She said problems with boisterous or lengthy comment periods do occur, but are rare, and often take place when particularly divisive issues are on the agenda.
"Are there a lot of people there with a lot of opinions? Yeah, sure, but that's their right. That's the beauty of living in a democratic society," she said.
Richard Feder, chief deputy for appeals in the city's law department, said lawyers are considering options, including whether to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider.
"I think this will call for a duplicative public comment period," Feder said. "It's not so much chaos as the city already provides for excellent public comment."
Feder said the city council will have to work out the mechanics of complying with the ruling.
"The city will do what the Supreme Court told them they have to do," he said.
© 2010 The Associated Press – Reprinted with permission. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
