Mar 19, 2022 5 min read

I recently attended my first public meeting of the Washington County commissioners. If reporters could risk their lives embedded in Ukraine, the least I could do was take the time to show my support for our commissioners and election office employees. All have been under constant verbal attack (and recent threats of physical violence) as they attempt to move on from the 2020 election and prepare for this May’s local primary vote. The public meeting was an eye-opening exemplar of democracy in action, and in some cases, democracy run off the tracks.

The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act (also known as the Open Meetings Law) requires the commissioners to deliberate and take official actions on county business in a public meeting. It requires that meetings have prior notice and that the public can attend, participate and comment before action is taken. Specifically, Washington County residents and taxpayers have the right to comment on issues “that are or may be before the board.”

The commissioners are permitted to establish rules to oversee public comment to avoid a chaotic French Revolution-style “free-for-all” from disgruntled residents. In Washington County a sign-up sheet with appropriate identification is required, and a three-minute limit on each speaker’s presentation has been established. In the interest of time and to avoid full-blown debate without proper deliberation, the commissioners do not respond to residents during the comment period. They do follow up with appropriate action when a valid issue is disclosed during public comment.

In normal times, the process well-served Washington County and other governing bodies throughout the commonwealth. Unfortunately, these are not normal times. Since the “stop-the-steal” crusade erupted following Donald Trump’s 2020 defeat, a small but vocal cadre of residents have made it their mission to challenge and decertify the election results in Washington County.

These individuals appeared to be well-coordinated when making public comments. Some attacked the county voting machines as untrustworthy.

Others attacked the manner in which votes were tabulated and demanded an expensive forensic audit. Still others focused on the discredited theories of “election expert” Douglas Frank, who personally addressed county officials several weeks ago. Most remarks appeared to be a rehash of comments from previous meetings. Over the past year, commissioners have discovered there is no way to satisfy these unproven demands short of taking steps to illegally decertify the 2020 county election.

A second occurrence took place during the public comment period that was further removed from the intended purpose of permitting rational input from concerned citizens. Two county row office officials signed up to speak as private citizens. Each used their allotted three minutes to level personal attacks that had little to do with the business before the board. Their comments were embarrassing, derogatory and disrespectful. The only possible explanation for such an outrageous display would be to use these outbursts as fodder for their social media accounts or as a political tool to remove those commissioners with whom they disagree.

What transpired contradicts the purpose of open meeting public comments. These row office officials should be banned from participating at future commissioner meetings as private citizens. This would not be discriminatory because these members of county government are in a position to make their views known through press releases, news conferences and political advertising. Their objective in speaking is not to discuss an issue on the meeting agenda. It is to attack the leadership of the county in the hope of replacing them in the next election cycle.

The last speaker in support of the “stop the steal” movement had the only new information of the day to report to the commissioners. At the end of her comments she smiled and informed them that she had a message from Frank, who has begun his own vicious attack against the commissioners. The commissioners were warned to be very concerned that Mr. Frank had acquired “all of their digital information, including sign-ins and passwords.” This was a thinly veiled threat, which, in my humble legal opinion, may be construed as criminal.

I came away from the meeting conflicted over whether the better response would be to ignore the misinformed repetitious barrage or to rebut it with public statements supporting Washington County’s election process and discrediting the maverick row office speakers. In favor of the first approach, if few county citizens are paying attention, it may be prudent not to give it further attention. The second approach has the advantage of publicly speaking the truth to such patently false positions and outrageous conduct. Whatever the resolution of this charade, under no circumstances should either the voter fraud adherents or the outlaw public officials who seek to discredit the commissioners receive any further concessions. Enough is enough.

When the public comment period was completed, almost all of the observers cleared the boardroom and took their talking points out to the foyer. With few spectators looking on, the meeting room returned to the formal civility it deserves. The commissioners could finally get down to the important county agenda items they were elected to address and to resolve.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.