Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Government topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges three Sunshine Act violations at Scranton council meeting; asks for remedy
Summary
Tom Coyne told council he believed the body violated Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act by failing to announce an executive‑session subject adequately, not addressing an in‑meeting objection, and failing to post an amended agenda within required time frames; council provided no substantive reply during the meeting.
Tom Coyne, a resident attending the July 22 Scranton City Council meeting, publicly alleged that the council committed three violations of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act during recent meetings and asked the council to remedy those actions.
Coyne said the council failed to announce a sufficient subject for an executive session (he said 'legal matters' is not specific enough), prevented or ignored a timely objection from a meeting attendee, and did not post an amended agenda within the time required by the Sunshine Act. Coyne said he had obtained a date‑stamped copy of an amended agenda that had not been posted publicly and asked Council President Smearl to address the matter.
"I object that the Sunshine Act was violated now in 3 separate acts," Coyne said, listing the three alleged violations and citing the portion of the Sunshine Act he said permits attendees to object at any time during a meeting (transcript references section 7‑10.1(c)). Coyne also referenced case law and asserted that the person alleging a violation bears the burden of proof.
Coyne further said that an attorney in the meeting, identified in his remarks as Solicitor Tom Gilbride, made comments with his microphone off and that, combined with broken or absent gallery microphones, meant objections and comments were not fully recorded. He asked the council to remedy the procedural defects.
Council President Smearl did not give a substantive reply on the record during Coyne’s remarks; the meeting proceeded after Coyne completed his statement. Coyne asked the council to address the alleged violations and suggested the matter required attention to restore public trust and the right of participation.
Why it matters: Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act sets public‑meeting procedures intended to ensure public notice and the ability of attendees to record objections and receive clear reasons for closed sessions. Coyne’s allegations raise procedural and transparency questions that, if verified, could require corrective action by the council in public notices, minutes or future agendas.
The transcript does not show a council response resolving the objection during the meeting. Coyne asked the council to remedy the matters and to clarify the reasons given for executive sessions and agenda changes going forward.
