Opinion: Put some teeth in law that requires open meetings
July 12, 2009 |
OPINION
Reading Eagle Editorial
The Issue: City officials repeatedly hold closed-door meetings to discuss the proposed sewage-treatment facility.
Our Opinion: The Legislature must update the act to provide fines for those who willfully thumb their noses at the state Sunshine Act.
Time and time again, members of Reading City Council have met illegally behind closed doors to discuss a proposed $250 million sewage-treatment plant that the city is required to build.
City attorney Keith Mooney, pointing to the provision in the state Sunshine Act that permits closed-door meetings to discuss pending litigation, closed the most recent session by citing a 2004 consent decree that was forced on the city by state and federal agencies and signed by a federal judge four years ago.
The problem is that the consent decree put an end to the litigation. As such, the city no longer can cite it as an identifiable complaint, as required by the Sunshine Act, according to Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"A final consent decree ends a lawsuit, so the litigation exception is no longer valid," she said.
The city still may be subject to penalties for not meeting deadlines established by the consent decree, but as Melewsky said, "Penalites are not litigation."
In February, council, at the order of Solicitor Charles D. Younger, closed a meeting to the public to discuss the same sewage-treatment plant that the city is required to build.
Beginning in April, council has held monthly illegal, closed-door meetings to discuss what to do about missing the deadlines established by the consent decree.
Mayor Tom McMahon said he will ask city attorneys for a clarification of the law, but city attorneys are the wrong people to ask. They represent the interests of city officials, not the people of Reading. As a result, they will recommend the meetings be closed to the public if they believe council members and the mayor want them closed.
City officials are able to thumb their collective nose at the Sunshine Act because they know neither they nor the city will be punished for violating one of the very laws they vowed to uphold when they were sworn into office.
Even if a suit were filed, the worst that would happen is the city would be given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
That is the primary reason why the Pennsylvania Legislature needs to put some teeth into the state Sunshine Act, just as it did with the state Open Records Act.
Just as the state Open Records Act presumes all records are public unless proved otherwise, the state Sunshine Act should be updated to assume all meetings are open to the public unless proved otherwise. The commonwealth should establish a statewide office that could serve as an arbiter in any disputes, but most important there should be penalties for willfully closing a meeting that should have been open.
These penalties should include fines - personal fines, not fines paid by the city, which in reality would be imposed on the taxpayers - of elected officials and solicitors who knowingly violate the law. And the fines should increase in severity with each violation.
Government works best when it operates in the harsh light of the public eye. That won't happen unless elected and appointed officials are compelled by a Sunshine Act with some teeth to conduct the public's business openly and honestly.
Reading Eagle Editorial
The Issue: City officials repeatedly hold closed-door meetings to discuss the proposed sewage-treatment facility.
Our Opinion: The Legislature must update the act to provide fines for those who willfully thumb their noses at the state Sunshine Act.
Time and time again, members of Reading City Council have met illegally behind closed doors to discuss a proposed $250 million sewage-treatment plant that the city is required to build.
City attorney Keith Mooney, pointing to the provision in the state Sunshine Act that permits closed-door meetings to discuss pending litigation, closed the most recent session by citing a 2004 consent decree that was forced on the city by state and federal agencies and signed by a federal judge four years ago.
The problem is that the consent decree put an end to the litigation. As such, the city no longer can cite it as an identifiable complaint, as required by the Sunshine Act, according to Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
"A final consent decree ends a lawsuit, so the litigation exception is no longer valid," she said.
The city still may be subject to penalties for not meeting deadlines established by the consent decree, but as Melewsky said, "Penalites are not litigation."
In February, council, at the order of Solicitor Charles D. Younger, closed a meeting to the public to discuss the same sewage-treatment plant that the city is required to build.
Beginning in April, council has held monthly illegal, closed-door meetings to discuss what to do about missing the deadlines established by the consent decree.
Mayor Tom McMahon said he will ask city attorneys for a clarification of the law, but city attorneys are the wrong people to ask. They represent the interests of city officials, not the people of Reading. As a result, they will recommend the meetings be closed to the public if they believe council members and the mayor want them closed.
City officials are able to thumb their collective nose at the Sunshine Act because they know neither they nor the city will be punished for violating one of the very laws they vowed to uphold when they were sworn into office.
Even if a suit were filed, the worst that would happen is the city would be given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again.
That is the primary reason why the Pennsylvania Legislature needs to put some teeth into the state Sunshine Act, just as it did with the state Open Records Act.
Just as the state Open Records Act presumes all records are public unless proved otherwise, the state Sunshine Act should be updated to assume all meetings are open to the public unless proved otherwise. The commonwealth should establish a statewide office that could serve as an arbiter in any disputes, but most important there should be penalties for willfully closing a meeting that should have been open.
These penalties should include fines - personal fines, not fines paid by the city, which in reality would be imposed on the taxpayers - of elected officials and solicitors who knowingly violate the law. And the fines should increase in severity with each violation.
Government works best when it operates in the harsh light of the public eye. That won't happen unless elected and appointed officials are compelled by a Sunshine Act with some teeth to conduct the public's business openly and honestly.