Reorganization minutes and press coverage show board’s solicitor appointment drew Sunshine Act objections

Documents included with the Feb. 17 packet show that on Dec. 4, 2025 the Greater Latrobe reorganization meeting recorded the appointment of the firm Dodaro, Dalfonso, Matta & Cambest to serve as district solicitor for 2026. The reorganization minutes and associated meeting material show a point of order was raised alleging the appointment process lacked adequate public notice under the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act and that some board members had privately met with the proposed solicitor before the public vote.

According to the reorganization minutes and the Latrobe Bulletin article included in the packet, board member Brad Toman challenged the notice and argued the posted resolution failed to list the firm name and compensation details before the meeting. Business Administrator Dan Watson provided comparative billing data during discussion, which the packet shows included figures indicating different billing arrangements in other districts. In the reporting included with the packet Watson’s materials showed a cited example that Matta’s firm charged $32,500 for bond work in one district while the outgoing solicitor had charged $7,500 for similar work, a comparison raised in the meeting discussion.

The vote to appoint the firm as solicitor was recorded in the reorganization minutes as passing (reported in the packet as 7–2 on one roll call tally and recorded elsewhere in the minutes as 7 yeas, 2 nays in the reorganization section). At the Dec. 4 meeting the newly seated board officers debated nominations and the solicitor appointment; the minutes show some members objected and called for an RFP process. The packet also includes a Latrobe Bulletin account (Dec. 12, 2025) quoting both critics and the proposed solicitor, Gary Matta, who said he did not believe any law was violated and characterized concerns about his workload as “a little bit offensive.”

What remains disputed: several board members told the Bulletin they were not involved in conversations prior to the appointment and objected to the process; outside counsel and local media counsel quoted in the coverage described the agenda detail requirement as a gray area and said enforcement is difficult. The board formally recorded documents related to the Dec. 4 meeting in the Feb. 17 packet during a member’s request to enter materials into the record.

Procedural outcome: the Dec. 4 minutes in the packet show the selection of solicitor and the associated roll‑call votes; the Feb. 17 meeting included the Dec. 4 minutes and related media coverage as part of the record.