Representatives want changes in executive sessions
Two proposals from State Representatives Dan Miller and Rick Saccone would require posting of agendas and recording executive sessions, respectively, to further shine the light into closed meetings.
State Rep. Dan Miller, D-Mt. Lebanon, has introduced H.B. 1080, which would require posting of executive session agendas before meetings.
Rep. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth, introduced H.B. 1671 in 2014, which would require the recording of executive sessions that would only be used in judges’ chambers by court order.
The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act has made municipal government and school board meetings more transparent than ever. But two local state representatives believe it hasn’t done enough to shine a light into executive sessions, when an elected body can discuss litigation, real estate and personnel issues out of sight of the public.
Particularly with real estate, board or council members can discuss only potential purchases or leases of property, not sell-offs on behalf of the township, borough or school district, which are supposed to happen before the public.
”An elected body is not supposed to be a landlord or in the business of selling assets without its constituents’ input,” said Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association attorney Paula Knudsen during a recent workshop on media law in Harrisburg.
In South Fayette Township, the future of the eight-acre Star City property along Millers Run Road has been in limbo for nearly a half decade; only recently did the board of commissioners officially put it up for sale at a minimum of $5 million. The public and media have no idea what – if any – conversation happened in past executive sessions that would have violated the Sunshine Act regarding the property.
State Reps. Rick Saccone, R-Elizabeth, and Dan Miller, D-Mt. Lebanon, have introduced different bills, reflecting their deviations on what would be legal and pragmatic amendments to executive session practices.
Saccone’s House Bill 1671 was introduced in 2014 and calls for the recording of executive sessions to be used in court if there is reasonable suspicion the elected body illegally discussed items behind closed doors.
”This would only be played in a judge’s chambers by court order, and they wouldn’t be subject to Right to Know requests (and accessible to the public), so it shouldn’t have, as critics have said, this chilling effect of having people not talking as they normally would in executive session,” Saccone said.
Miller introduced in House Bill 1080 last month, which would require posted agendas of any planned executive sessions.
”This is so, no matter what, the public has a general sense of what’s going to go on behind closed doors,” Miller said.
Saccone criticized Miller’s approach, saying it still doesn’t provide proof if the public raises concerns over the session. “It doesn’t dictate, still, what can and can’t be talked about, and that’s a problem,” he said.
Miller countered, saying Saccone’s bill may be illegal in some instances, particularly in regard to matters involving litigation.
”Recording them, even under the pretense that it wouldn’t be used unless in a judge’s chambers, may be illegal in itself. It could violate an attorney-client privilege, a person’s right to council, as seen in litigation matters. And where would the recording be stored or housed? And it may have the opposite intended effect of pushing these conversations entirely out of executive session, and for a couple of the elected officials taking it down the road to a coffee shop after meetings,” he said.
The two men emphasize they have a great respect for each other’s approach, and that they’re on the same page when it comes to acknowledging the problem citizens have with trusting government institutions. Both said they are, however, skeptical that the “yes” votes are in the Legislature to pass either piece of legislation.
”A lot of excuses are from people (in the General Assembly) who served in local government, and they want to preserve that back-room mentality,” Saccone said, “and if people want to see action on this, they have to tell their legislators. We need help and pressure on us to push this through.”
”One could argue we have two halves of the same problem: the before problem and the after problem,” Miller said, “and I don’t believe a majority of municipal government and school board discussions behind closed doors are malicious or this evil thing, but there are concerns. And yet despite those concerns, we can’t sacrifice constitutional principals (by way of right to private attorney access) to try and solve this issue.”
In the meantime, Knudsen clarified how a member of the public can appeal to get more information from a solicitor or legal authority who usually announces executive sessions with a one-word reason.
”Usually you’ll hear the attorney say, ‘Alright we’re going to go into executive session to discuss personnel.’ Alright, well what about it? One-word answers do not cut it, and there is precedent from The Reading Eagle Co. vs. City of Reading from 1993,” the media law attorney said. “By that ruling, the agency must, when dealing with litigation matters, announce the names of the parties, the docket number of the case and the court in which a lawsuit is filed (when discussing actual or potential litigation).”
Knudsen said the court gave no guidance on how much information is required when other types of executive sessions are announced, but it is clear that the reason “must be genuine and meaningful, and one the citizen can understand.”