Sunshine Law - Part III

On Friday, July 14, 2006, the questions surrounding the Nazareth Council and the Sunshine Law continued as the Morning Call's Arlene Martinez wrote about it (read the story here) and provided some nice historical context.

In the story Martinez summarizes Councilman Stoudt as believing, "if officials had to alert the public every time a couple of them got together, no business would ever get accomplished."

Following that thought process why even vote? It only slows down the process. In business you wouldn't have to be bothered with the Sunshine Law or voting, but in government you do.

The other interesting point brought out in the piece was related to Mayor Keller. The article stated:

Before becoming mayor, Earl Keller criticized council for closed-door meetings council held in discussions to remove a Civil War-era cannon from Center Square.

''The people here do not know what council is doing,'' he said in March 2000.

Based on the beautiful ceremony held on July 4 of this year re-dedicating the cannon, it is clear that this has a special place in the Mayor's heart (as well as many other residents).

His plea at the time is no different from that of the residents of the borough who have been drawn to this issue from many different perspectives, be it they are from the neighborhood to be affected, their children use the Park, they are interested in preserving green space, they want to have the borough and police serve as an anchor to the main street business district, or they want a site that will improve the value of the surrounding area not devalue it.

In the event any party (and I personally don't have the resources to do so alone) would legally challenge the borough as having violated the Sunshine Law, according to section 713 of the PA Sunshine Law:

Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any or all official action taken at the meeting shall be invalid.

Further, section 714 addresses penalties and states:

Any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose by that member of violating this chapter commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution.

Up until Stoudt's comments I believed that Council was only acting based on the guidance received from the solicitor. Now, however, it would seem that failing to announce meetings is being done for expediency and convenience, not to mention a disregard for the state Sunshine Law.

If you missed the earlier posts on this topic you can read them:

Read Part I
Read Part II

What do you think? Should Nazareth Council adapt its thinking toward the Sunshine Law? Or do you think it will wait until legally challenged?