May 10, 2025 3 min read

The three most beautiful words in the English language are “I don’t know.”

“I was wrong” runs a close second.

Over the past several months, reporters in the joint newsroom operated by the Herald-Standard and Observer-Reporter have found themselves objecting to the way meetings are held, questioning omissions on meeting agendas, and being required to ask for basic information or having to file a right-to-know request for it.

It’s unacceptable, and taxpayers should be incensed at the way some elected officials are conducting business.

Let’s dig into what’s gone on in Fayette, Greene and Washington counties in a one-week period:

During an April 28 meeting, Southeastern Greene School Board approved a new contract for Superintendent Rich Pekar without talking about how much he’d be paid. When the newspaper’s Garrett Neese asked Pekar, the superintendent said he’d release that detail after the solicitor approved the contract.

What if the solicitor needed to change wording to an already-approved contract?

When Pekar sent the document to Neese on May 6, he said it was as-approved the week before. While we have no reason to doubt Pekar, the way it was handled was unacceptable.

On May 1, Washington County commissioners added a motion to temporarily halt funding for the county’s tourism agency to their voting meeting without first discussing it – in public – at their agenda-setting meeting the day before.

In that case, county solicitor Gary Sweat acknowledged the way that was done may have been improper. He told reporter Mike Jones the commissioners would revote on the matter during their May 15 meeting.

Sweat gets some lukewarm praise for that, but why didn’t he put a stop to the vote before it was taken?

On May 5, the Uniontown Area School Board met to discuss the district’s budget. One of the items on the agenda was to consider a tax increase to make ends meet. The measure failed, and board members headed into executive session for “finances.” When reporter Zach Petroff objected – “finances” isn’t one of the qualifying reasons for an executive session – board solicitor Armand Mangulis doubled down.

“I can tell you in my capacity as the solicitor that (the executive session) has a direct impact on pretty much every valid reason to have an executive session,” he said.

If that was the case, the board should have offered up one of the legal reasons to privately talk, those reasons being labor negotiations, purchase or lease of real estate, litigation or potential litigation, personnel matters and discussion of confidential business that would violate privacy or legal protection if conducted publicly.

Our elected officials have a duty to educate themselves about their responsibilities when it comes to open, transparent government. Additionally, the solicitors who advise these boards have a duty to know the law and advise their clients on the right way to do things.

If there’s a question about what the right thing is, the answer for board members and the solicitor is as simple as saying, “I don’t know.”

When that doesn’t happen, all we can hope is that they’ll learn when they need to say “I was wrong.”