As they see it

By Jenny Brown & Lance Rogers
Lower Merion Township Commissioners

Last week, the budget watchdog group Citizens for Responsible Budgeting submitted a letter that referenced an upcoming "non-public budget 'workshop'" that the Lower Merion Commissioners would be having on September 24. As a result of that letter, we received a number of legitimate questions regarding the purpose and propriety of such a closed door Board meeting, which we would like to address.

Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law requires official board actions to be made in public. It also requires mere discussions by a quorum of the board, held for the purpose of making a decision (deliberations), to take place in public, unless there is a specific exception in the law. Although there is an exception for certain "working sessions," that exception does not relate to budget policy discussions and debate. The intent of the law is to ensure that citizens have notice of and the right to attend all meetings where township business is discussed.

As a matter of good government policy, we believe that if there is a "gray" area, the board should err on the side of openness and transparency. Even when a clever legal interpretation can technically keep a meeting from the public eye, it is the duty of the Commissioners to see that the spirit of the law is upheld.

We admit that the purpose of the Sept. 24 budget "workshop" is not entirely clear. Officially, the purpose is for the Township Manager to give the Commissioners information and reports relating to the upcoming budget and for the Commissioners to "ask questions." However, our experience has been that the September "workshop" each year effectively results in deliberation: it is at the workshop that the Commissioners have expressed their "preferences" as to specific spending that the Manager's budget should propose, the amount of tax increase that they would favor or oppose, and the amount of general fund reserves that they would like to maintain. The manager's subsequent proposed budget and recommendations have then reflected the preferences of the majority of the Commissioners. In the public budget hearings that follow, that same majority of Commissioners has urged approval of the proposed budget because it is the "recommendation" of the Manager, and it has been declared to be too late in the process to try to make any effective changes. In this process there is, essentially, no meaningful public deliberation of actual budget policy or specific spending and no meaningful opportunity for public input. And this, we have been told, is the way it has always been done.

Just because it may always have been done, does not mean it is proper or should continue. Over the past few years, there has been an effort by many on the Board to increase governmental transparency and disclosures, and to put an end to backroom discussions that should take place in public. We congratulate our colleagues on the Board because, together, we have all made much progress in this regard. Given the legitimate questions about propriety of the budget process, the Board has an opportunity to take a great leap forward in transparency, and to break with more questionable practices of the past.

When the board guides the manager as to what it wants to see in his proposed budget, it should be done in public, where it is subject to public knowledge and scrutiny. If there are sensitive matters, there are ways to deal with those matters in a responsible way that also satisfies the Sunshine Law. When elected officials take action behind closed doors, they effectively make their difficult decisions easy ones, because no one knows the positions they have taken or can hold them responsible or accountable. When Commissioners effectively hide their decisions within the body of a document proposed by the manager, they avoid accountability and responsibility for those decisions.

We have a legal responsibility to uphold the law. Just as importantly, we have an ethical duty to uphold the intent of the law. Public servants doing the people's business have no reason to fear open meetings. We know a number of our colleagues share these views on transparency of the budget process; however, on a 14 member board, it takes at least eight Commissioners to call for change in order to effect change and time is of the essence.

We call on our colleagues to take action to open this budget process to the public and reform the way we have done business, to break with the past and to embrace another new and better way of doing the people's business in Lower Merion Township.

Jenny Brown, Lance Rogers
Lower Merion Township
Commissioners