Doylestown vote could have violated Sunshine Law Vote could have violated Sunshine Law
By: CHRISTINA KRISTOFIC
The Intelligencer
When Doylestown Council voted to approve filing a lawsuit against the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority a week after the lawsuit was filed, one councilman objected to the action.
"I feel like someone might have violated the Sunshine Law, and I will not vote on this because I would be condoning the violation if there was one," Councilman John Buckman said.
Doylestown filed suit against the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority on May 21. The suit asks the court to order the authority to give up its efforts to collect retroactive sewer tapping fees and lift an alleged moratorium on construction in the borough.
A few days before the suit was filed, at the council's regular meeting May 18, the council held an executive session to discuss the possibility of legal action against the sewer authority. Solicitor David Conn announced after the executive session that the council had reached consensus in authorizing its staff and solicitor to negotiate with and potentially sue the authority. Council did not take a public vote on the matter.
Council then held a special meeting May 27, during which council members voted to ratify the filing of the lawsuit.
Buckman abstained from the vote, citing concerns that council might have violated the Sunshine Law. All other council members at the meeting voted in favor; David Bull was absent.
"How can you do something and then vote on it a week later? To me, it doesn't make sense," Buckman said. "Even if it's not against the Sunshine Law, it's still not open government and it's not how things should have been done."
Media attorney Melissa Melewsky said Buckman's concerns are valid.
"If the complaint was filed before the board made their public vote, I think that's problematic from a Sunshine Act perspective. The board can't commit themselves to a course of action without a public vote," said Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
Melewsky said the Sunshine Act allows governing bodies to discuss litigation behind closed doors, but requires them to vote in public after they have allowed the opportunity for public comment.
Conn said a public vote was not taken prior to the filing of the lawsuit because borough officials did not have time to schedule a public meeting.
"The following couple of days (after the council meeting on May 18) saw two significant developments: One was it was clear there would be no pre-litigation settlement. Two was that 86 W. State-Mary St. (The Knight House) informed us that they intended to file (a suit against the borough and the authority)," he said. "The consensus of everybody was that we wanted to be a plaintiff before we were a defendant."
Conn believes that if there was a Sunshine Act violation, it has been corrected by council's vote. He said his opinion is supported by case law.
Melewsky confirmed that there are cases that have established that a board can vote after an action to cure a Sunshine Act violation.
"What happened here clearly disregarded the point of the Sunshine Act. The public has a right to participate in these kinds of decisions," she said.
"The Sunshine Act is there for a reason. It gives us rights for a reason. To ignore that because some cases say you can cure a violation, is still a violation."
The Intelligencer
When Doylestown Council voted to approve filing a lawsuit against the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority a week after the lawsuit was filed, one councilman objected to the action.
"I feel like someone might have violated the Sunshine Law, and I will not vote on this because I would be condoning the violation if there was one," Councilman John Buckman said.
Doylestown filed suit against the Bucks County Water and Sewer Authority on May 21. The suit asks the court to order the authority to give up its efforts to collect retroactive sewer tapping fees and lift an alleged moratorium on construction in the borough.
A few days before the suit was filed, at the council's regular meeting May 18, the council held an executive session to discuss the possibility of legal action against the sewer authority. Solicitor David Conn announced after the executive session that the council had reached consensus in authorizing its staff and solicitor to negotiate with and potentially sue the authority. Council did not take a public vote on the matter.
Council then held a special meeting May 27, during which council members voted to ratify the filing of the lawsuit.
Buckman abstained from the vote, citing concerns that council might have violated the Sunshine Law. All other council members at the meeting voted in favor; David Bull was absent.
"How can you do something and then vote on it a week later? To me, it doesn't make sense," Buckman said. "Even if it's not against the Sunshine Law, it's still not open government and it's not how things should have been done."
Media attorney Melissa Melewsky said Buckman's concerns are valid.
"If the complaint was filed before the board made their public vote, I think that's problematic from a Sunshine Act perspective. The board can't commit themselves to a course of action without a public vote," said Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.
Melewsky said the Sunshine Act allows governing bodies to discuss litigation behind closed doors, but requires them to vote in public after they have allowed the opportunity for public comment.
Conn said a public vote was not taken prior to the filing of the lawsuit because borough officials did not have time to schedule a public meeting.
"The following couple of days (after the council meeting on May 18) saw two significant developments: One was it was clear there would be no pre-litigation settlement. Two was that 86 W. State-Mary St. (The Knight House) informed us that they intended to file (a suit against the borough and the authority)," he said. "The consensus of everybody was that we wanted to be a plaintiff before we were a defendant."
Conn believes that if there was a Sunshine Act violation, it has been corrected by council's vote. He said his opinion is supported by case law.
Melewsky confirmed that there are cases that have established that a board can vote after an action to cure a Sunshine Act violation.
"What happened here clearly disregarded the point of the Sunshine Act. The public has a right to participate in these kinds of decisions," she said.
"The Sunshine Act is there for a reason. It gives us rights for a reason. To ignore that because some cases say you can cure a violation, is still a violation."