Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sunshine Act Concerns topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Act 93 representatives tell Keystone Central board redlined edits were omitted, raise Sunshine Act transparency concerns
Summary
Act 93 administrative representatives told the Keystone Central board that a rewritten draft they received differed materially from the redline they submitted and asked the board to reconvene to ensure the final written agreement reflects prior discussions. They also questioned whether some ad hoc meetings met Pennsylvania Sunshine Act notice requirements.
At the start of the June 16 special meeting, Act 93 administrative representatives recounted a series of meet-and-discuss sessions and told trustees they had lingering concerns that a rewritten draft delivered to the Act 93 group did not reflect previously negotiated redline language.
Nick Varelli, speaking for Act 93, traced the timeline from an initial March 31 meet-and-discuss through a redline submitted April 2 and handed hard copies on May 5. Varelli said the document that appeared May 5 was a complete rewrite of the redline the Act 93 group provided and that subsequent revised drafts delivered May 29 and June 3 omitted or materially altered points they believed had been reached in prior meetings. "We got a completely rewritten document that we saw on May 5th," he said, and the Act 93 groups declined to sign the June draft.
Representatives also raised questions about whether meetings of the ad hoc committee were properly noticed and conducted in accordance with the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. They cited Policy 005 (board committees) and asked the board to consider whether ad hoc committee formation, membership appointment, and meeting notice complied with public‑meeting rules. Act 93 representatives asked that the board provide attendance by the board secretary, circulate notes of agreed-upon changes, and consider another advertised meet-and-discuss to resolve omissions.
Board members acknowledged the concerns and said they would consult district counsel and circulate corrected drafts. President Elizabeth Lynch and other trustees said the ad hoc committee had drafted material but that the full board reviewed the proposal; trustees asked legal counsel to clarify whether particular ad hoc meetings required separate public notice. The board agreed to obtain guidance and to circulate an updated draft to both trustees and Act 93 representatives before the next public meeting.
The exchange left the procedural dispute unresolved: Act 93 requested another formal meet-and-discuss session and documentation to ensure the final written proposal reflects both sides' prior discussions; the board agreed to seek counsel and to continue deliberations at the next advertised meeting rather than resolve the procedural dispute at the special session.
