© Copyright 2000-2005 by The 5thEstate.com. Permission granted to use, provided credit is given to 5thEstate.com. All Rights reserved. Day in the life of a good government activist
by Ron Harper, Jr.
I often have what I call “Forrest Gump moments”. That's when I just happen to walk into somewhere and discover something going down. Wednesday night's East Cocalico meeting was such a meeting. While I have owned property in East Cocalico for 9 years, I only attended one meeting during that time. One. Last night was my second meeting and I couldn't believe what happened. OR in this case, what almost happened.
The first thing I noticed before the start of the meeting is the public comment period was at the END of the meeting. The Sunshine Act by law mandates that people are allowed to comment “prior to taking official action”. Since I don't come to these meetings, I decided to see if the Chairman of the Supervisors would invite the public to comment before taking action thereby satisfying the requirements of the Sunshine Act.
Nope. Violating the Sunshine Act, the Supervisors blew through the first couple of agenda items, hardly pausing at all. While quietly sitting in the back of the room next to my video camera, my eyes widened as I looked at what was coming on the Agenda - It was a resolution designed to restrict the public's speech during the meetings!
According to the Chairman, Doug Mackley, the resolution was written by the township solicitor, Tom Goodman. Now, don't you think that if you are a lawyer being paid big bucks to write a resolution about the Sunshine Act you would READ what the law actually says? Apparently not.
Since I started the “good government” aspect of 5thEstate.com, I have read and studied the three laws related to local government – the Sunshine Act, the Right-to-Know laws and the Ethics Act. All totaled, these laws can be printed out on a dozen pages, so there is really not that much to read. Isn't it reasonable that a solicitor should know the same?
Goodman's resolution codified putting the public comment at the end of the meeting! I have to tell you that my first reaction on hearing this was a rather immature – DUH! But why is someone who is practicing law since November of 1973, writing a resolution that is so obviously illegal on its face? (BTW, I was a month shy of 10 years old when Goodman began practicing!)
During consultantgate of the School District of Lancaster, I embarrassed their solicitor, George Brubaker of the Hartman Underhill and Brubaker law firm into not having a meeting regarding the consultants behind closed doors. I published the case law which clearly showed that consultants were NOT considered employees and should be discussed in an open meeting.
Brubaker is practicing 37 years next month and yet he still doesn't know the laws that his clients pay big bucks for him to understand. My mom always said, “Fool me once, Shame on You. Fool me twice, Shame on Me.” Why do townships continue to hire attorneys like Goodman and Brubaker who make such embarrassing, inept mistakes? Let's get solicitors that recognize and value good government laws and who will help their clients uphold those laws!
But what can you expect when Don Totaro, the Lancaster County District Attorney, has never prosecuted or even gotten involved in ANY Sunshine Act or Right-to-Know case? NEVER. When I charged and attempted to prosecute the Manheim Township Commissioners, I became the first and only person in Lancaster County to do so. Is that the first violation of the Sunshine Act? Hardly. When solicitors are writing resolutions that codify lawbreaking – it's politics as usual in Lancaster County!
The only bright spot in the East Cocalico meeting was that the supervisors tabled the resolution. But why don't they drop it permanently?
Here is why resolutions restricting public comment are a bad idea:
1)There are very, very few people that speak at meetings so why is this even an issue? Why make more laws?
2)Occasionally, a lot of people come to a meeting. When they do, it's because they are upset about something. Why not let them speak until they have all gotten a chance to speak? Restricting them only makes them angry and more resolved to come back to the next meeting and take another crack at getting to you. One long meeting every few years is better than long meeting after long meeting!
3)The right to “redress” means we the people has a right to tell you what we think. The Sunshine Act puts legs to that constitutional right, so don't restrict it.
4)Lancaster County has ½ million people and yet the commissioners, for years, have allowed the public to participate in the ENTIRE meeting! The public can ask questions and make comments throughout the entire meeting. (For example, I regularly had disagreements with former Commissioner Paul Thibault but he NEVER stopped me from commenting during ANY part of the meetings!) Why do these rinky-dink townships, with a fraction of the population of Lancaster County, feel like they need restricting rules?
I ask that you print out this piece and give to your township supervisors, borough council member, school board member etc... Let them know that you are going to pay attention and that you expect them to follow the law and hire attorneys that will give them advice that recognizes the importance of the good-government laws
In some ways, it really discourages me to see my own township violate the law. After 5 ½ years, this publication, and citizens of like-mind, are still the only thing protecting us from our own elected officials!
© Copyright 2000-2005 by The 5thEstate.com. Permission granted to use, provided credit is given to 5thEstate.com. All Rights reserved.