East Penn School Board Prez. Francee Fuller has reassured fellow board members about my claim that tonight's meeting constitutes a violation of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act."Board Members..... As you know, the board is having a goal setting session. No decisions made.....just establishing directions. Interestingly enough, I was standing next to our solicitor last night when Mr. Stoltz spoke with Mr. Fisher to verify that there is NO VIOLATION of the Sunshine Act in such a meeting."
My blog is characterized as a "continuing spread of misinformation."
Dem's fighting words, Francee!
Tonight's meeting behind closed doors is taking place so that the school board can "identify and seek agreement on top goals." That's according to their own damn agenda, one that does not appear on the school board web page. This is not some seminar or conference designed solely to inform members about their responsibilities. It is a policy-setting session. It's exactly the kind of meeting in which the public is actually most useful. The law demands that the meeting be open.
Don't take my word for it. Look at the express language of the Sunshine Act. "Official action" includes the "establishment of policy by an agency." It includes more than simple votes. A goal-setting session certainly falls within that definition. The state legislature has determined that "the right of the public to be present at all meetings of agencies and to witness the deliberation, policy formulation and decisionmaking of agencies is vital to the enhancement and proper functioning of the democratic process. [S]ecrecy in public affairs undermines the faith of the public in government and the public's effectiveness in fulfilling its role in a democratic society."
If this blog is spreading misinformation, then the state Sunshine Act must be misinformation.
23 comments:
Well said, Bernie. I think homeowners on fixed income and other productive taxpayers hammered by higher taxes might be interested in knowing the "goals" that School Board their money
will pay for and even parents and others in community might be interested in knowing what goals the Board has for improving educational performance. Lots of talk about construction, little talk of instructions
You'd think the School Board Prez could spell my last name correctly wouldn't you?
Ding dong the meeting's dead (canceled).
Julian,
I hope you aren't being facetious when you say the meeting is cancelled. Bernie is right; this is a violation of the Sunshine Act.
The way I read the goal of this meeting was to, at a minimum, to deliberate what those goals would be. Even if a vote wouldn't be taken, the public has a right to witness those deliberations.
Some people may find this a pesky law, but open government is absolutely necessary for government to work properly.
Suggestion for the next meeting agenda: A thorough review of the Sunshine Act.
Ms. Fuller owes you an apology, Bernie. She is woefully misinformed as to what the Act requires. She should be first in line to get properly trained.
Tsk. Tsk.
Anon 4:53
The meeting has in fact been cancelled.
I know Francee Fuller well. She is a good person and I have no doubt she truly believed there was no Sunshine Act violation. But facts are facts - she was wrong and should apologize.
There is obviously a fracture in the East Penn board. And if Board solicitor Fisher really stated (and I believe he did) that this meeting would not constitute a Sunshine Act violation, then they have several problems to work through.
The Banker
Banker, I've never met Ms. Fuller or most of the E Penn School Board. But it appears they have decided to err on the side of the public and cancel tonight's scheduled meeting. That is a credit to every one of them, as well as their able solicitor. I will note their reversal tomorrow. I'm very happey to see a group of elected officials who are willing to listen. It happens very rarely.
Agreed, and I'm glad they did. We've got good people and good governance in the Emmaus area, glad to see that continue.
The Banker
Sometimes..the little guy wins one!
Surprised the hell out of me!
Nice work here, Bernie. This Internet blog thing is really catching on. Mrs. Fuller needn't apologize for going on her solicitor's opinion. The solicitor, on the other hand, may not be the best attorney for the job - unless he was misinformed about the true purpose of the meeting. I'm glad this blog's "goal" is to promote open government.
I completely agree. Ms. Fuller has no need to be sorry, especially since her solicitor had spoken to her. I'm sure there was just a misunderstanding about the precise nature of the meeting. Had the meeting occurred, there would be little anyone could really do. The Sunshine Act is essentially toothless. That's why Ms. Fuller and the entire board is to be commended - I am pleased to see they want to get it right.
Couldn't agree more. I'll reserve congratulations until their statements convince me they canceled the meeting in good faith; not because they were caught by a conscientious blogger - who, incidentally, has fairly given them the benefit of the doubt here. Explanations are still owed. They appear to have done the right thing to this point.
Bernie can't you assist ? These people need help like the people in Williams ?
Bernie can't you assist ? These people need help like the people in Williams ?
People in Williams Tp appear to be very well organized and have filed a Sunshine Act claim.
No Julian, you and your cohort's reading of the Sunshine Act is at fault. You try to read it as if it requires every single time a majority of the School Board is in the same room, the 'meeting' must be public. With your interpretation, the employee retirement dinner and many sporting events would have to be advertised as public meetings if 5 board members attend. All decisions have to be made in public. Not all discussions have to be held in public.
You are also confused about the difference between the goals of the body (the board) and the goals of the entity, the district. The District Goals are set by the Strategic Planning process, which has public members on the Committees, and ratified by the board in a public meeting. The goals for the board to better do its job are an element of governance under Roberts Rules of Order, and don't come under the Sunshine Law. This matter has been in the courts before, and demagogues like you have tried the same rabble-rousing tactics and failed. Boards can have goal-setting meetings, retreats, training and consultation on board operations and they don't have to be public meetings. That's what the school solicitor told you, but you don't want to listen because it doesn't fit your agenda.
Since that agenda now appears to be to try and make the board as disfunctional as possible, and denigrate the board to better your political aims, and has now wasted my time, which I have to take away from my job to attend meetings that get canceled because faint-hearted souls don't want 'controversy', I am going to have to oppose your efforts. You will undoubtedly find that controversial.
Mr. Ballard,
Let's be clear about something - I have no interest in whatever petty squabbles are going on between you and Julian Stolz or other members of the board. Moreover, I am no cohort of anyone. My sole concern is compliance with the state's Sunshine Act.
Whether you were setting goals for the board or the district, the fact remains that this meeting was a policy-making session. Because that is so, your action is considered "official action" governed by the open meeting requirements of the Sunshine Act. Read the act. It's very simple. If you were all assembled to receive information so you could better perform your job, I'd have no problem. But setting goals is policy making. In fact, why on earth wouldn't you want the public involved in something as important as that?
Fortunately for the residents of E. Penn School District, your colleagues on the school board would rather err on the side of the Sunshine Act as opposed to your solution - government behind closed doors. I don't call their decision "faint-hearted." I call it courageous.
If you expect students and teachers to abide by the law, then why not set a good example for them and follow it yourself?
As far as your able solicitor is concerned, it's clear to me that he was not properly informed that this meeting was intended as a policy-making session.
Mr. Ballard,
If a quorum of school board members gets together AND discusses agency business, that is most certainly a violation of the Sunshine Act.
The bottom line is that as a newer board member, Julian didn't just accept the status quo. He had doubts about the legality of the meeting and spoke up. I'd take him any day over one who accepts the status quo, even when someone questions whether the meeting was legal. That's called erring on the side of caution. I wish more public officials had that attitude.
Setting board goals for how the board works together is NOT 'policy'. It is not 'agency business'. A board retreat to learn how to work together is not a "policy-making session". It is not the subject of any Sunshine Law provision.
Not liking that fact is one thing. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, even when it is wrong.
Accusing the board of deliberately trying to evade the Sunshine Law is something else entirely.
The East Penn Board has gone to great lengths to make all of our agency business decisions in public. For example, we were one of the first boards to insist that interviews of potential candidates for board vacancies must be conducted in public, along with the vote for the replacement. This was even before the Sunshine Law was amended to make this a provision of law.
During every closed session, we are constantly asking the solicitor as to whether or not a subject we are on must be discussed in public, trying to be conscientious about keeping public matters public, but at the same time keeping confidential matters confidential.
The retreat date had been on the calendar for weeks. There were at least two public meetings where Julian could have brought the matter up in public to 'resolve' his concerns. (He WAS advised by the district solicitor that the meeting was legal.)
Then of course, he would have received responses from his fellow board members and the solicitor on the public record. Ahead of time and out in the open. So any potential impropriety could be addressed before it became a publicity issue. So he would have to face the people he was accusing of impropriety.
Instead, he conducted what is becoming his signature modus operandi, a media (which includes this blog) ambush. I consider such tactics despicable.
Mr. Ballard,
I have known many EPSD board members for years, and don't doubt anyone's integrity at all.
While you may be correct legally, there is such public sensitivity to issues like these that in my mind the reactions were to be expected.
My biggest concern here is not the meeting (I felt the board reacted well). Rather, there is obviously a problem with the relationships btw/ school board members that will impact its ability to govern effectively. That can't continue.
I ask Francee Fuller, you and all the board members to work this out, don't let it be a continuing poison. We in Emmaus had enough of that garbage w/ the Otto Slozer days. I don't want to go back in any way.
The Banker
Mr. Ballard,
A "goal setting" meeting to determine three goals, "identify perfomance measures", "discuss a goal reporting protocol" and "what activity would be useful in assisting the School Board in achieving these goals" is clearly setting policy. You can call it whatever you want, but is is official action governed by the Sunshine Act.
So far as I know, nobody accused EPSB of "deliberately" evading the Sunshine Act. I do not challenge your good intentions. Please don't challenge mine. I made my concerns known within 12 hours of being advised of the potential violation.
As far as your animus against Stlz is concerned, please take that somwehere else.
Mr. Ohare:
What you said (quoted below) is not correct:
"A "goal setting" meeting to determine three goals, "identify perfomance measures", "discuss a goal reporting protocol" and "what activity would be useful in assisting the School Board in achieving these goals" is clearly setting policy. You can call it whatever you want, but is is official action governed by the Sunshine Act."
If they apply solely to the board itself, they are not 'official actions'. Let me try an illustration. If the Board made a policy to require every employee in the district to wear a pink outfit while at work, that would be an official action governed by the Sunshine Act. If the board made a decision to have every member of the board wear a pink outfit to every board meeting, that would NOT be an official action governed by the Sunshine Act.
The "official action" applies to actions directly affecting the entity, the school district. The board is not the district.
There seems to be some problem recognizing this distinction.
WHAT!?
According to Mr. Ballard - "The Board is not the district."
Then what the heck is it? An advisory body for the Lehigh County Sewer Authority?
Post a Comment