Limited options for recourse lead to lawsuit in Centre County
A resident of a small Centre County borough marred by dysfunction is suing its council, claiming its members have unlawfully filled vacant elected positions and conducted borough business without proper public input.
Litigation like this is among the few ways that Pennsylvanians can force local governments to correct an erroneous action, but it’s often a costly and difficult process.
Pennsylvania’s open meetings law safeguards the transparency of local governance and is enforced by citizens, but options for doing so are limited and the barriers are significant, said Melissa Melewsky, media counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, of which Spotlight PA is a member.
“There’s no borough code police. There’s no Sunshine Act police,” Melewsky told Spotlight PA. Pursuing civil litigation under the open meetings law puts the onus on the public, which is costly, time-consuming, stressful, and “very difficult to win,” she said.
Milesburg Borough struggled with a string of staff departures and resignations earlier this year that were set off by rumors and accusations against the former borough manager online, the Centre Daily Times reported. Borough secretary Robyn Dyke testified in court on Sept. 17 that staff and council spent recent months working to get business back in order.
In the civil lawsuit filed in the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, borough resident Bryce Taylor alleged that Milesburg’s council broke state law when it convened a meeting in April to fill three vacant seats on its governing board.
Taylor claimed the council needed four members to have a quorum — the number of elected officials required to be present so that their actions bind the agency legally — at its April 8 public meeting, but only three were present.
Those council members did not have authority at that time to make appointments for the vacancies, and subsequent actions by the new leaders should therefore be invalid under the borough code, according to Taylor.
By limiting open comment after Taylor raised an objection at the April meeting, Milesburg Borough Council also violated the public’s legal right to have a voice in its governance, according to the complaint.
Pennsylvania law does not require borough councils to take public input when filling vacancies, but Taylor argued in court that Milesburg’s April appointments disenfranchised residents.
Taylor — who chairs the local municipal sewer authority and expressed interest in filling one of the council vacancies — asked the court to invalidate the appointments he alleged were not permissible under state law and to reappoint four council members for Milesburg.
Attorneys representing the borough said in a court filing that Taylor has no standing to sue, and that there’s no basis to void any council actions following the April meeting.
Centre County Judge Katherine Oliver on Wednesday denied a preliminary injunction petition by Taylor to pause all official actions by the current Milesburg Borough Council until the court decides on his claim. The case will continue, but next steps have not been scheduled.
Taylor told Spotlight PA that he is representing himself in the case after his requests for the county district attorney and the state attorney general to prosecute the case went unanswered.
While a violation of the Sunshine Act could carry both criminal and civil liability, prosecutors only have jurisdiction over the criminal aspect of enforcement. It’s a “very high bar to meet” if prosecutors set out to prove municipal leaders willfully disregard the law beyond a reasonable doubt, Melewsky said.
The intent of the Sunshine Act is corrective rather than punitive, Melewsky added. Courts have the power to impose appropriate remedies that compel government agencies to do better under the eyes of the law. She said legislative changes that would shift some burden in Sunshine Act litigation away from the public, such as clarifying who has the burden of proof, are being explored by advocates like herself. —Min Xian, Spotlight PA
|
