PNA Legal Hotline: Sunshine Act not violated if quorum not present
From the
PNA Legal
Hotline
By Teri
Henning, General Counsel
and Melissa Melewsky, Media Law Counsel
Pennsylvania
Newspaper Association
Q: Our township supervisors held a non-public
meeting where two of five current supervisors and
one supervisor-elect were present. Is this a
Sunshine Law violation?
A: Probably not, although depending
upon the topics discussed, the meeting may be
inconsistent with the spirit of the law.
The basic rule of the Sunshine Act is that any
time a quorum of an agency deliberates agency
business; it must do so at an open meeting. There
are limited exceptions to this rule, the most
common of which are the executive session
exceptions, which allow agencies to discuss
certain matters behind closed doors, including
personnel, litigation, collective bargaining and
the purchase or lease of real estate.
In this case, there probably isn’t a quorum
because the supervisor-elect isn’t officially a
member of the agency and has no real power of
office; that typically doesn’t happen until the
formal swearing in.
However, if the two supervisors and the
supervisor-elect discussed agency business that
was not appropriate for a closed-door discussion,
the discussion is inconsistent with the intent
and spirit of the law. It also sets a bad
precedent for future similar discussions.
Elected officials must be very careful to
acknowledge the requirements of the Sunshine Act
and the rights it creates for the public. The
Sunshine Act seeks to create an informed public
which is active in government, resulting in
better representative government overall. It also
provides a measure of accountability that is
necessary and appropriate.
Pennsylvania Newspaper Association attorneys provide member newspapers with advice on government access issues.