Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident accuses council of Sunshine Act violations after handicapped-parking item tabled
Summary
A resident told the Yeadon Borough Council it has been holding private deliberations despite prior training on the Sunshine Act after the council voted to table discussion of handicapped parking to an executive session; the mayor and the solicitor said the vote to table was to gather more information and allowed under the law’s exceptions.
A resident leveled accusations that Yeadon Borough Council members have held private deliberations and improperly withheld information after the council voted to table a discussion about handicapped parking and move it to an executive session.
Elizabeth Electner, a resident who spoke during public comment, said the council “had been having private discussions and preplanning their votes outside of public meetings” and criticized the body for what she described as a pattern of secrecy. She asked, “Is this a government, or is this a speakeasy?”
The matter traces to an earlier complaint: Electner said a Democratic committee member had filed a Sunshine Act complaint alleging private deliberations and that the resulting settlement required a solicitor-led presentation to the council on the Act. Electner said that despite the training, the current council “voted to table discussion about handicapped spaces to be discussed at the next executive session, privately.”
Mayor Rowan Hopkins and Borough solicitor Brianna Bryant responded during the meeting. Hopkins said the council’s vote to table was intended to allow members to gather more information before voting and that, in his view, the action did not violate the Sunshine Act. “We voted to table said item to get more information and background on the issue. … It was not any violation of the Sunshine Act,” Hopkins said.
Solicitor Brianna Bryant agreed that a council may table an item to gather information and reiterated the limits of executive session discussion. “Council cannot speak in executive session beyond the limitations or the exceptions that are permitted,” Bryant said, adding that property-related concerns can sometimes fall under executive-session exceptions.
The council did not record details of the original employment agreement Electner referenced; she told the meeting she had filed a right-to-know request for the employment agreement between Chief Giammarco and the borough and had been told “there is no record.” Electner questioned how a legislative body “unanimously vote[s] without a recording of what they voted for.”
No formal vote transcript or roll-call tally of the motion to table was read into the public minutes during the meeting. Mayor Hopkins described the council’s action as a tabling to obtain more information; the solicitor reiterated the legal limits of executive session and said property concerns can be discussed in that forum.
The council did not take additional formal action on the handicapped-parking issue during the meeting. The item remained tabled for further information and follow-up in executive session.
For context, the Sunshine Act requires that governmental deliberations be held at public meetings unless an explicit exception applies, such as litigation or certain personnel or property matters. The council’s solicitor indicated some handicap-parking matters can involve property concerns that may be discussed in executive session when allowed by law.
The council did not announce a timetable for returning the handicapped-parking item to the public agenda.
