Bill would tweak executive session rules
State Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth, has introduced a measure that would create stricter guidelines on when elected officials can go behind closed doors to discuss personnel matters or other issues.
The bill, which is being debated in the House Committee on State Government, would limit when members of school or township boards, city councils or any other elected body, can retreat into “executive session.” Those meetings, held out of public view, are typically used by officials to discuss issues they deem too sensitive to be aired in public, such as hiring or firing decisions, labor contracts or pending litigation. However, Saccone, and other supporters of the bill, believe that the regulations are drawn too broadly and that, sometimes, the discussion within executive sessions can wander into other areas. Those deliberations should be seen and heard by constituents, they insist.
“The default should be that information is public,” said Saccone, whose legislative district includes portions of Washington County. “It’s absolutely vital to hold people accountable.”
To that end, the measure would mandate that executive sessions be recorded and held by a governing agency for one year. In that time, if there is a challenge made on the legality of an executive session, a judge would be able to review the contents of the recording to determine if the commonwealth’s Sunshine Act was violated. Saccone said the language of the bill would likely be tightened so the recordings would not be available to be heard under the open records law or subpoenaed.
It would also allow officials to review plans for emergency preparedness or security in executive session.
The excessive use of executive sessions creates “a chilling effect on people,” Saccone contends, and decreases their faith in government.
The proposal has won plaudits from the Pennsylvania News Media Association, which has long advocated for more openness in public meetings. Of the roughly 2,000 calls the organization’s counsel, Melissa Melewsky has fielded in the last year, 428 of them – almost one-fourth – have been about the use or abuse of executive sessions.
“In my experience, I’ve found that the executive session exception is overused,” Melewsky said.
Though she conceded that some of the bill’s language could be adjusted, Paula Knudsen, the organization’s director of legal affairs, called it “a great start.”
However, the Enola-based Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors is less pleased with the bill. Elam Herr, the association’s assistant executive director, said that the way he interpreted it, employee disciplinary issues might have to be hashed over in public.
“I just see more problems with the bill than benefits,” he said. Along with potential complications regarding employee evaluations and discipline, Herr was unsure of how recordings of executive sessions could be exempt from right-to-know laws.
Saccone is “going too far with this,” Herr added.
The Pennsylvania School Board Association has not yet determined its position on the bill, according to Steve Robinson, the group’s spokesman.