Council questions confidentiality policy for public‑utility information; members seek executive session before vote on Resolution 84

City of Chester council members spent the bulk of the July 7 deliberative meeting discussing Resolution 84, a proposed policy establishing procedures for handling confidential security information provided to the city by public utilities and municipal authorities.

A councilmember asked whether the resolution was “pertaining to the sale or the monetization of the Chester … Water Authority or any of the water authority assets,” noting public concern about disclosures if assets are sold. The solicitor replied that the policy is a general, statute‑required procedure for handling confidential information supplied by municipal authorities and public utilities and that it may or may not apply to any future sale.

The solicitor said the policy was brought to the city’s attention by Nicholas Ranik, Esquire, of Ballard Spahr, and described the policy’s relationship to the state’s Right‑to‑Know law: “Right to know law is a general Pennsylvania law which permits the public to receive certain nonprivileged information. This is a separate stand alone statute and now city policy which governs the production of confidential information provided by municipal authorities to the city.”

Council members pressed about whether the new policy would let the city deny Right‑to‑Know requests; the solicitor said whether a request could be denied depends on the specific request and whether the information falls within the statute’s definition of confidential security information. The solicitor summarized: “It's specifically designed for municipal authorities and confidential information they may provide, but it's essentially the same. It's just a stand alone policy required by statute for, confidential security type information that a public utility or municipal authority might provide to the city.”

Several council members said they wanted more time to review the policy line by line. One councilmember recommended postponing the matter and holding an executive session when all members are present. That councilmember said, “I recommend that we table it so for further review.” Another councilmember suggested an executive session before returning the item to council for a vote; council consensus favored delaying formal action until the council can review the policy in detail.

No formal vote on Resolution 84 was recorded on July 7. The council’s next steps, as discussed, were to hold an executive session with the solicitor and to return the item to a future agenda after line‑by‑line review. The meeting record does not show any final determination about the policy’s scope, and the solicitor repeatedly cautioned that whether records can be withheld under the policy depends on the facts of individual requests.