Council insists Sunshine Act was not violated at meeting
CALIFORNIA – A California resident demanded a written apology Thursday from borough council, but the borough solicitor said he will not issue an apology until he looks into the matter further, insisting the board did not violate the state’s Sunshine Act. Ex-councilman Nick Caruso, addressed the board in a lengthy statement expressing his opposition to a “secret” meeting between council and California University officials last week and his disappointment in being escorted out of the meeting room when he tried to address the board on the issue.
Last week, during a planning session, borough council asked residents to leave the room to discuss “contract negotiations” dealing with a “payment in lieu of taxes” agreement with California University officials for a new 336-bed housing facility to be constructed near Jefferson at California Complex.
Caruso, who previously served on council for four years, said he was ousted from the borough’s planning session last week when he tried to question the meeting.
“I saw something going on that I did not like. It was a bad barrel of fish and it stunk,” Caruso said. “My purpose in objecting to the secret meeting is to insist that the public be aware of the financial impact of giving the university special treatment… Mr. (Michael) Savona (the borough solicitor) gave the board bad advice. That meeting did not qualify under the rules of the Sunshine Act. “
Savona, who was there the night in question did not attend last night’s meeting, instead of Keith Melenyzer, who has previously served as the borough’s solicitor for some time, sat in on the meeting.
Caruso said he was not accusing anyone of “malfeasance,” but demanded a written apology.
“I have a stellar reputation in this town and I object to having my name smeared in the newspaper,” Caruson said.
Teri Henning, media legal counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said that she believed the board may have been in violation of the act.
But Melenyzer said he would not issue a written apology until he looked into the matter further, insisting the board was not in violation of the Sunshine Act.
“It’s absolutely, unequivocally not a violation under the Sunshine Act,” said solicitor Keith Melenyzer. “From what I understand, there are two things that trigger a violation, official action and deliberations,” he said, noting he got this information from reviewing U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
Melenyzer contends that there was no official action and no deliberation during the private meeting.
As a “general rule,” the Sunshine Act states, “official action an deliberations performed by a quorum of the members of an agency must take place at a meeting open to the public.” Under the act, deliberation is defined as, “discussion of agency business for the purpose of making a decision.” The act allow for closed meetings for the purpose of board of auditors work sessions, conferences and executive sessions for the purpose of: personnel matters, collective bargaining, purchase, lease of real property, litigation consultation, legally protected confidentiality and academic admission and standing.
Following the private meeting, in response to questioning by Caruso, Arthur Harris board president said, the two groups were “negotiating figures for taxes.”
In a telephone interview, Savona said, in 2000 the board was going to contest a request for tax exemption by the university, but instead the two groups entered into a settlement agreement that included a payment in lieu of (real estate) taxes for the Jefferson at California Complex. He said the borough and the university will enter into a similar agreement for the construction of the new facility, in which the borough will agree not to “challenge or contest” a request for tax exemption by the university in exchange of “payment in lieu of taxes.”
Savona said that the private meeting was justified to be closed because the two groups were meeting to “avoid (matters spilling into litigation by negotiating a settlement in advance.”
Henning said, in her opinion negotiating for the purpose of preventing future litigation does not fall ender the exception of the act. She said there are some exceptions to the act that allow for meetings to be held in private, but said the exception “applies to a narrow set of circumstances… which I do not believe apply here.”