More info is needed

On Monday, Summit Hill Borough Council is scheduled to act on an ordinance which calls for abolishment of the town's water authority.

Hopefully, council won't act on that ordinance.

This isn't to say that the borough taking over the authority is wrong. On the other hand, there hasn't been enough research done to show that this would be in the best interest of borough residents.

There certainly hasn't been enough information released publicly to justify the conversion from an authority to a council-controlled water department.

The water authority and borough council held a joint meeting this week to discuss the matter.

The solicitor for the authority explained that the authority is incorporated, that it owns land, that it has its own bank accounts, that it has indebtedness, that it is involved in (nonrelated) litigation and that it has its own employees.

When the authority's solicitor asked acting chairman Bill Chapman why the council wants to take over the water authority, Chapman responded, "My answer to that is, why not?"

The water authority said council never discussed the matter with them.

It was also stated at the meeting that the borough has figures in its preliminary 2015 budget regarding water authority operations, even though council members admit they haven't seen the financial records of the authority.

The residents of Summit Hill deserve answers before the council takes the assets of the authority.

What happens to the property owned by the authority? What is involved in transferring it to the borough? What about the corporate status of the authority? How will the authority's indebtedness be handled?

What about the ongoing lawsuit involving the authority? Will the non-union authority employees become unionized like regular borough employees?

Council members said privately they want to take over the authority because:

• They feel they can operate the authority more efficiently than is current being done. For example, presently when there is a water line break, the authority hires an outside contractor to help with repairs. The borough has its own equipment.

• A council member said the authority has not been cooperative.

• Money would be saved because there wouldn't have to be a separate solicitor and separate attorney.

One councilman said he is concerned some authority members might want salaries like the neighboring Lansford-Coaldale Joint Water Authority. The chairman there gets a full-time salary.

The council might be right in its arguments. More research must be done, though. Just as important, the public must be kept informed.

The proposed takeover of the water authority was sprung quickly on the public. Was this something decided behind closed doors? Sure a public vote was taken, but not until after figures were put in the tentative budget and the ordinance was drawn up.

Residents deserve more transparency.

By RON GOWER

rgower@tnonline.com