Opinion: Explanation was lacking for secret borough caucus
OPINION
The Reading Eagle
Sinking Spring Borough Council may have violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act earlier this month when council members met privately to discuss what was described as a personnel issue and then returned to a public session to request the resignation of the mayor.
Mayor Francis A. Butkus refused to resign immediately, although he said he would discuss the matter with his attorney. But the legal issues here do not revolve around whether council members can request the mayor's resignation. Instead they revolve around whether the mayor falls under the personnel exemption to the Sunshine Act and whether council provided enough information before going into the secret meeting.
In a 1993 case involving Reading City Council, the Reading Eagle objected to a closed-door session. The trial court ruled and the Commonwealth Court upheld the contention that even though it is in the public interest that certain matters be discussed in private, the public has a right to know what matter is being addressed in private sessions.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that City Council must be specific before entering a closed-door meeting, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private.
In other words, borough council members cannot simply claim they are going into private session to discuss a personnel issue and expect that will meet the standard for excluding the public.
The other issue is whether the mayor qualifies under the personnel exemption to the Sunshine Act's requirement that all meetings be open to the public.
One county court in Pennsylvania has ruled that the personnel exemption does not apply to matters involving elected officials, although another ruled that a school board could meet privately to hold interviews with candidates who wanted to fill a vacancy on the school board.
In the case of Sinking Spring Borough Council, it was unclear if the executive session was called to deal with concerns about a borough employee or with concerns about the mayor.
After the secret session ended and council members returned to a public format, they voted to send letters to the mayor and a borough employee, but they did not reveal the content of the letters. Did behavior by the employee result in these letters, or was it behavior by the mayor?
If it was the former, then an executive session would have been appropriate, provided council members were specific in explaining what was to be discussed.
Judging from the fact that the mayor was asked to resign, however, it appears the executive session may have been prompted by the mayor's behavior. If that was the case, the executive session may have been inappropriate.
An elected official, although he receives a stipend for attending meetings, technically is not a borough employee.
In either case, council members should have been more specific in explaining why they opted to meet behind closed doors, and they should have been forthcoming in telling interested citizens what was discussed that prompted three of the five council members to call for the mayor's resignation.
Discussing the public's business in public, as the Commonwealth Court said, isn't always the best option, but keeping the public informed about private discussions is a necessity.
The Reading Eagle
The Issue: Sinking Spring Council meets in a private session and then calls for the mayor to resign.
Our Opinion: The closed-door meeting may have violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.
Sinking Spring Borough Council may have violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act earlier this month when council members met privately to discuss what was described as a personnel issue and then returned to a public session to request the resignation of the mayor.
Mayor Francis A. Butkus refused to resign immediately, although he said he would discuss the matter with his attorney. But the legal issues here do not revolve around whether council members can request the mayor's resignation. Instead they revolve around whether the mayor falls under the personnel exemption to the Sunshine Act and whether council provided enough information before going into the secret meeting.
In a 1993 case involving Reading City Council, the Reading Eagle objected to a closed-door session. The trial court ruled and the Commonwealth Court upheld the contention that even though it is in the public interest that certain matters be discussed in private, the public has a right to know what matter is being addressed in private sessions.
The Commonwealth Court ruled that City Council must be specific before entering a closed-door meeting, indicating a real, discrete matter that is best addressed in private.
In other words, borough council members cannot simply claim they are going into private session to discuss a personnel issue and expect that will meet the standard for excluding the public.
The other issue is whether the mayor qualifies under the personnel exemption to the Sunshine Act's requirement that all meetings be open to the public.
One county court in Pennsylvania has ruled that the personnel exemption does not apply to matters involving elected officials, although another ruled that a school board could meet privately to hold interviews with candidates who wanted to fill a vacancy on the school board.
In the case of Sinking Spring Borough Council, it was unclear if the executive session was called to deal with concerns about a borough employee or with concerns about the mayor.
After the secret session ended and council members returned to a public format, they voted to send letters to the mayor and a borough employee, but they did not reveal the content of the letters. Did behavior by the employee result in these letters, or was it behavior by the mayor?
If it was the former, then an executive session would have been appropriate, provided council members were specific in explaining what was to be discussed.
Judging from the fact that the mayor was asked to resign, however, it appears the executive session may have been prompted by the mayor's behavior. If that was the case, the executive session may have been inappropriate.
An elected official, although he receives a stipend for attending meetings, technically is not a borough employee.
In either case, council members should have been more specific in explaining why they opted to meet behind closed doors, and they should have been forthcoming in telling interested citizens what was discussed that prompted three of the five council members to call for the mayor's resignation.
Discussing the public's business in public, as the Commonwealth Court said, isn't always the best option, but keeping the public informed about private discussions is a necessity.
