Stadium Authority meeting criticized
By Jeremy Boren
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Pittsburgh's Stadium Authority violated state open-meeting rules when a majority of members spoke privately by phone a day before the authority's first public meeting this year, a media law expert said Tuesday.
Authority officials deny they ran afoul of the law, saying they did not have a quorum on the call. At question is how many voting members are needed.
The October 2000 state statute that governs the Stadium Authority and its sister agency -- the Sports & Exhibition Authority -- says it should have seven members appointed by the mayor or Allegheny County executive. The board has five members and no vacancies.
According to the state's Sunshine Act, "official action and deliberations by a quorum" must occur "in a meeting open to the public."
Three members participated in the call Monday afternoon. Authority Director Mary Conturo said the purpose of the call was to explain to John Jackson III, a newly appointed member, how the Stadium Authority works.
"Three is a quorum. That's pretty simple math," said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Typically, public boards count a quorum as a simple majority of members, she said.
A seven-member board would have a quorum with four members, Melewsky said.
Conturo said solicitor Diane Wohlfarth participated in the conference call and said the conversation did not require public scrutiny.
"The solicitor's position is that the law requires four members for the quorum," Conturo said. "There's no provision that allows for the number to be reduced."
She couldn't explain why the board has only five members.
On the call were board members Mike Danovitz, a Downtown tax attorney; Robert Ewanco, owner of lobbying firm Impel Strategies LLC; and Jackson, vice president of Laborers Labor Union Local No. 373.
Conturo later said "the board may decide to adopt a more restrictive policy" that governs private meetings among members, but she wasn't certain what the restrictions would be or when the board might consider such a change.
Danovitz said no decisions or votes were made during the conference call.
"We just talked about the agenda," Danovitz said. "Nothing was decided."
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Pittsburgh's Stadium Authority violated state open-meeting rules when a majority of members spoke privately by phone a day before the authority's first public meeting this year, a media law expert said Tuesday.
Authority officials deny they ran afoul of the law, saying they did not have a quorum on the call. At question is how many voting members are needed.
The October 2000 state statute that governs the Stadium Authority and its sister agency -- the Sports & Exhibition Authority -- says it should have seven members appointed by the mayor or Allegheny County executive. The board has five members and no vacancies.
According to the state's Sunshine Act, "official action and deliberations by a quorum" must occur "in a meeting open to the public."
Three members participated in the call Monday afternoon. Authority Director Mary Conturo said the purpose of the call was to explain to John Jackson III, a newly appointed member, how the Stadium Authority works.
"Three is a quorum. That's pretty simple math," said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel with the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Typically, public boards count a quorum as a simple majority of members, she said.
A seven-member board would have a quorum with four members, Melewsky said.
Conturo said solicitor Diane Wohlfarth participated in the conference call and said the conversation did not require public scrutiny.
"The solicitor's position is that the law requires four members for the quorum," Conturo said. "There's no provision that allows for the number to be reduced."
She couldn't explain why the board has only five members.
On the call were board members Mike Danovitz, a Downtown tax attorney; Robert Ewanco, owner of lobbying firm Impel Strategies LLC; and Jackson, vice president of Laborers Labor Union Local No. 373.
Conturo later said "the board may decide to adopt a more restrictive policy" that governs private meetings among members, but she wasn't certain what the restrictions would be or when the board might consider such a change.
Danovitz said no decisions or votes were made during the conference call.
"We just talked about the agenda," Danovitz said. "Nothing was decided."