Jun 22, 2008 By Patty Yauger 6 min read

CONNELLSVILLE – It appears certain members of council have taken the stance that only city residents or those who own property within the city limits are permitted to speak during public meetings, but residents cannot know in advance what business the elected officials plan to enact on their behalf. While other elected officials, vendors and area residents have been given the opportunity to address council in the past, at its recent meeting the mayor opted to deny a neighboring municipal tax collector the opportunity to offer comment.

Dunbar Township tax collector Marigrace Butela had approached the mayor and council during the public meeting as she had at the June meeting to discuss an ongoing issue with the Connellsville Senior Center.

According to Butela, there is speculation that a center-sponsored Meals On Wheels program might be in jeopardy, and because some seniors in her municipality receive their lunches through the program, she wanted to address council.

After giving her name and address, Butela was asked by Mayor Judy Reed if she resided within the city or paid real estate taxes to the municipality and when she responded that she did not, Reed informed her she would not be permitted to speak to the members of council.

“I do believe the regulations in the Third Class City Code says that people that have the right to speak are either city residents or taxpayers,” said Reed. “This (meeting is for) city business.”

Butela responded that the federally funded senior center was “everyone’s business,” but Reed disagreed and restricted her from making her presentation.

Afterward, Butela said that she believed she had “every right” to speak to council about the senior center, where numerous seniors from her community attend programs, eat their lunches and take part in activities.

“That is the only issue I wanted to address,” she said.

In a related matter, resident Yvonne Rush said that she and other city residents are being denied access to planned council action because the administration will not produce an agenda in advance of its monthly meeting as indicated in a prior resolution.

“This is unacceptable behavior,” said Rush.

Reed responded that a 1998 approved action referred to as the “four day rule” resolution did not provide for an agenda to be made public, instead, it is in place to require council members to submit information that is to be on the agenda or other materials related to agenda items to the city clerk four days in advance of the scheduled meeting. The additional information is also to be distributed to other council members for review.

“That resolution has been misinterpreted to require the agenda, not the information, correspondence, etc., related to the agenda four days before the meeting,” said city solicitor Thomas Bowlen. “It does not say the agenda has to be prepared four days before the meeting.”

Rush said that she learned that Councilman Brad Geyer, however, had been in receipt of the agenda prior to the meeting, but questioned why she was not provided a copy until the day before the council met and the media was denied access to the document.

“When am I going to be able to come in next month and get a finalized agenda in my hand?” she asked, pointing to an agenda item to be considered by council that would give members two additional days to submit their agenda information, but also noted that printed paper agendas would not be available until the meeting. “At what time will the printed paper agendas be available to the public; whether it is me or the media or Mr. Geyer or whoever lives in this city?”

Reed responded, “It says prior to the meeting.”

City Treasurer Judy Keller said that to deny the public and the media access to the prepared agenda in advance of the meeting is a disservice to the community.

“How can the citizens of this community know what action is going to taken by any legislative body prior to that action being taken if the general public is not informed,” she said. “You should not read about actions taken the day after it occurs in the local newspapers.”

Reed said that council members are elected to represent the public and to work in their best interest.

“We are in compliance with the Open Records Law,” she said.

When Reed presented a motion to repeal the “four day rule” and replace it with a resolution that required council members to have agenda information to the city clerk within 48 hours of the scheduled meetings and specified that printed agendas would be available prior to the meetings, Geyer questioned the timetable for the receipt of his information and the distribution of the agenda to the public.

“Is this saying we’ll receive our agenda 48 hours prior to the meeting, and if so, why can’t the public (have access to it) at that time,” he said. “I’d like to receive (the agenda) four days before the meeting and I’d like the public to receive it at the same time.”

Geyer did not accept Reed’s response that the city was undertaking several new projects, applying for grants and dealing with day-to-day issues that made it difficult to produce an agenda days in advance.

After additional discussion, Reed said that “council” would be provided an agenda the day prior to the meeting.

“When will the public receive theirs?” he said.

Reed responded that she did not favor allowing advance public access to the agenda because in some cases if the information is distributed, it deters volunteers from accepting positions on city boards and authorities.

“Someone will give their name and it gets in the newspaper,” she said. “It’s sometimes derogatory when it’s said that they are replacing this person like there is something wrong with the person.

“People have said if my name has to go before council, take it off; very good, professional people because they don’t like to get ridiculed or humiliated or (be portrayed) as if they are inferior or superior to someone else.”

Again, Geyer pressed for an answer to his question as to when the public and news media would be provided access to the agenda.

“I would argue that it is our responsibility to make the public aware of what we are intending to do,” he said.

Bowlen said that he is unaware of any regulation that requires the administration to give advance notice as to what business is to be conducted unless a special meeting is called and at that time the notice must specify the reason for the unscheduled session.

Geyer said that the public is entitled to the information.

“There’s nothing wrong in exceeding expectations,” he said. “That’s all I’m asking for and that’s all the public is asking for.”

The motion to repeal the “four day rule” and enact a “two day rule” was defeated with Councilman Charles Matthews, David McIntire and Geyer voting no and Reed and Terry Bodes supporting the action.