Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Resident accuses borough solicitor of intimidation over records and questions severance payments; council asks for documents
Loading...
Summary
A resident alleged a solicitor asked about a requester's U.S. residency and linked that response to opacity around a $125,000 severance; council members asked the resident to provide the written response so officials and counsel can review and respond.
A public commenter at the Yeadon Borough caucus accused the solicitor's office of using a resident's immigration or residency status to block or intimidate records requests and raised questions about a severance payment for a former employee.
Anna Della Sandrantonio told council that a borough solicitor told a requester that the person's U.S. residency status was "unascertainable," which she said was inappropriate and could chill residents from seeking records. She also said the borough had paid "over $27,000 as of January 16" on a $125,000 severance agreement for Rafi (also spelled "Ralphie") Cave "without a valid legislative vote." She urged the borough to provide transparency and to review the solicitor's response.
Solicitor Miller responded that he had not yet reviewed the specific exchange and stressed the borough's practice: a Right-to-Know request must be in writing and include contact information. He told council that some requests arrive through encrypted or foreign email servers that make verification difficult and said he would review any written response the resident provides. "If you have in writing something that you could forward to me that was the response, please let me know," the chair said.
Council members asked the resident to forward the written record of the solicitor's reply; the mayor and solicitor said they would investigate and, if appropriate, the requester can use the Right-to-Know appeal process.
The claim about the severance payment prompted repeated council requests for documentation. Council members said they could not assess whether any impropriety had occurred without reviewing the underlying documents and asked the resident to circulate them to the chair and solicitor for review.
Next steps: Council requested the resident provide the written response she received from the solicitor; the solicitor agreed to review that material and respond. The borough flagged the Right-to-Know training it recently attended as context for handling requests from unverified sources.
