Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Open Meetings topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises concerns about meeting notices and executive-session limits
Summary
A Kingston resident urged clearer public notice practices and pressed the council on executive-session rules and zoning 'abandonment' standards; the solicitor said Council does not take votes in executive sessions and staff will provide requested records and written guidance.
Yehudah Aronson, a Kingston resident, told the Town Council on Feb. 16 that he could not find a legal notice for a recent special voting meeting and urged the borough to improve how it posts short-notice meeting information.
Aronson, who said he had purchased a digital subscription to the Citizen's Voice, asked where the legal ad had been placed and suggested that if a person actively looking for notices cannot find them, the public is likely not being informed. He proposed alternatives to newspaper-only legal ads for short-notice voting sessions.
The comment came after Aronson asked the council to confirm whether the Jan. 2 meeting minutes had been omitted in error; Council staff said the Jan. 5 minutes were accidentally not included during a municipal-secretary transition and will be adopted at the March 9 regular voting meeting.
Aronson also raised concerns about executive sessions and cited Section 708C of the Sunshine Act, saying official action about items discussed in executive session must occur in public meetings. Solicitor Harry Mattern replied that he is "very much aware of the limitations" under the Sunshine Act and assured the public that the council does not take votes in executive sessions.
Aronson questioned a document he said bore signatures from Council President Kate McMahon and an individual named Rhodes that he interpreted as recording a vote tied to an executive-session matter; Council did not take immediate formal action in response and staff said they would follow up with records and clarification.
On zoning, Aronson described a conflict between Kingston's Zoning Ordinance Section 910 and Commonwealth Court precedent about when a preexisting nonconforming use is considered abandoned. He said Commonwealth Court decisions require both an intent to abandon and actual abandonment and offered to supply the council with a written summary of his position.
The council did not dispute Aronson's characterization of the law at the meeting; staff and the solicitor acknowledged they would review records and provide the requested materials. No formal action was taken on the claims during the Feb. 16 meeting.
