Restricting public comments at committee meetings not a violation

Dear Mr. Frassinelli:

I am the Slatington Borough solicitor. I don't usually respond or comment on newspaper articles, but your recent publication concerning public participation in municipal meetings caught my attention. An implicit assumption made by you and your unidentified experts deserves further focus.

I am hoping you can appreciate some of the back story here and, perhaps, even acknowledge room for reasonable disagreement. Despite the atmosphere portrayed in your editorial, including identifying me specifically, I observe that you never contacted me for any insights.

As solicitor, I was asked whether there was a way to reduce the amount of time spent on accepting public comments at committee meetings because they were running very long. My initial reaction was "no, there really is no way to do that," but was directed to look into the matter anyway. To my great astonishment, the Sunshine Act makes a surprising distinction.

Please take notice of the following:

1. The definition of "agency" is very broad and includes "the body and all committees thereof of all of the following: any board, council, authority or commission of any political subdivision or any municipal, township or school authority."

2. The term "agency," as so-defined, is used in almost every section of the Sunshine Act, but it is not used in the public participation section.

3. The term "board or council" is the only phrase used in the public participation section.

4. Because the term "agency" includes "the body and all committees of any board or council," etc., the Legislature's use of the alternative phrase "board or council" cannot mean the same thing as agency. It therefore means only the body itself and not its committees. In this respect, the Pennsylvania Statutory Construction Act reminds us that "(w)hen the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit." 1 PaCS section 1921( c).

Hopefully, while you may disagree with the actions taken at council committee meetings in Slatington, you can see their actions have a reasonable basis in history and law, not malice.

This distinction has led to the recent practice at Slatington Council committee meetings to restrict public comment to people invited to attend those meetings for specific agenda items. (No such action is proposed for meetings of the full council). As I understand several council members, it is believed that the committees are better able to generate more focused, thoughtful recommendations to the council, at which public comment may be made. While the freedom to accept public comment at these committee meetings remains possible, it appears to be the privilege of the committee members to invite those comments or not.

I have traditionally considered the Times News to be reasonably objective when reporting news stories. Here, the newspaper could more correctly state the Sunshine Act required only boards or councils to allow public comment, not "agencies." All the arguments cited in your editorial are fine reasons for amending the act, which is certainly a reasonable option and not opposed by me. But the act, as presently written, does not require public comment at agency meetings, but only meetings of boards or councils. Please do not disregard the compromise language employed by the General Assembly under the pretext of pursuing some unwritten spirit of the act.

Again, I hope these insights are taken for informative purposes. Aside from that, I wish you well and to have a good day. Feel free to contact me, if you wish or have any questions or concerns.

Edmund J. Healy, Esquire