Opinion: Commonwealth Court issues disappointing Sunshine Act opinion
August 12, 2012 Sunshine Act
OPINION
By Melissa Melewsky, Media Law Counsel
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
In a disappointing decision, the Commonwealth Court held that a series of private meetings did not violate the Sunshine Act.
In Smith v. Township of Richmond, the court found that a series of meetings in which supervisors discussed a proposed quarry did not violate the Sunshine Act because there was no evidence of deliberation therefore, the gatherings were not “meetings” as defined by the law.
The township supervisors held a series of meetings with concerned citizens, the quarry company, and two neighboring communities in order to gather information about quarry operations and community concerns. After the meetings occurred, the township voted publicly to settle the lawsuit and allow the quarry in the township. A citizen challenged the validity of the non-public meetings by filing a Sunshine Act lawsuit.
In its decision, the court relied heavily on the fact that none of the parties present during the private meetings admitted or testified that deliberation had occurred. The supervisors testified that they did not consider a proposed settlement or resolution to the lawsuit during the meetings but only asked questions of citizens and neighboring communities while posing questions to quarry representatives.
The court found that the meetings were not “meetings” as defined by the Sunshine Act because no deliberation took place. In the absence of evidence of deliberation, the court found that the meetings were held for fact finding purposes and were therefore informational only and not required to be public.
This is a disappointing decision, but newspapers should be aware that it does not allow agencies to discuss a proposed course of action such as settlement or other proposed courses of action during a “fact finding” meeting.
Read the decision
By Melissa Melewsky, Media Law Counsel
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association
In a disappointing decision, the Commonwealth Court held that a series of private meetings did not violate the Sunshine Act.
In Smith v. Township of Richmond, the court found that a series of meetings in which supervisors discussed a proposed quarry did not violate the Sunshine Act because there was no evidence of deliberation therefore, the gatherings were not “meetings” as defined by the law.
The township supervisors held a series of meetings with concerned citizens, the quarry company, and two neighboring communities in order to gather information about quarry operations and community concerns. After the meetings occurred, the township voted publicly to settle the lawsuit and allow the quarry in the township. A citizen challenged the validity of the non-public meetings by filing a Sunshine Act lawsuit.
In its decision, the court relied heavily on the fact that none of the parties present during the private meetings admitted or testified that deliberation had occurred. The supervisors testified that they did not consider a proposed settlement or resolution to the lawsuit during the meetings but only asked questions of citizens and neighboring communities while posing questions to quarry representatives.
The court found that the meetings were not “meetings” as defined by the Sunshine Act because no deliberation took place. In the absence of evidence of deliberation, the court found that the meetings were held for fact finding purposes and were therefore informational only and not required to be public.
This is a disappointing decision, but newspapers should be aware that it does not allow agencies to discuss a proposed course of action such as settlement or other proposed courses of action during a “fact finding” meeting.
Read the decision
