Three Northampton County Council members staged their own protest of an Executive Session at last night's meeting. After being outvoted, 5-3, they refused to participate in a private discussion of the looming, $25 million, swaption.
Although Pennsylvania's Sunshine Law generally requires open meetings, there are exceptions. Personnel matters, litigation or anticipated litigation, the purchase or lease of real estate, or matters that might violate "a lawful privilege or lead to the disclosure of information or confidentiality protected by law," can be talked about in the back room.
Executive John Stoffa requested the closed meeting, and County Solicitor Karl Longenbach justified it as a matter of anticipated litigation, and because it might lead to the disclosure of information that would put the County at a disadvantage in its negotiations with Bank of America.
Lamont McClure questioned whether either reason cited would justify an executive session, and instead argued that an "important public policy issue" like the swaption should be discussed publicly. Tom Dietrich added that going behind closed doors is "just another opportunity to go in a direction I'm not comfortable with." Ken Kraft added his vote to McClure and Dietrich, but without explanation.
After being outvoted, the three Council members refused to participate in the executive session. Instead, they remained at the dais, joking with reporters, for the 15-minutes that the other members spent discussing the swaption.
This is a first.
I've never seen Council members refuse to participate in an executive session, even if they thought the matter discussed should be under public scrutiny.
My first reaction is that their actions were needlessly disrespectful. But as I reflect on it, I actually agree that a Council member should refuse to participate in a closed door meeting if he or she feels the matter should be out in the open.
So while decisions were being made, these three were joking with reporters. Get some thick skin boys, you were not elected to sulk because you didn't get your way. If we wanted that type of thinking we would elect children to council.
ReplyDeletewell, on the other hand...if they thought in good conscience the session violated the law, i think they might have a point.
ReplyDeleteLook, we're lucky several of them even show up. They were simply trying to avoid another boring meeting and more work. Look no farther than laziness for the culprit.
ReplyDeleteJust maybe they have some scruples.
ReplyDeleteIf this was reibman calling for a closed door session, you would be livid. The whole "potential litigation" line is often weak and used by solicitors to avoid having to answer difficult questions in public. Stoffa's engaging in closed door government now.
ReplyDeleteThat's three members that can be eliminated from the board!
ReplyDeleteBUSH!
ReplyDeleteIt's also a nice opportunity for a Council member to wash their hands of a difficult situation. Now whichever way the swaption resolution goes, they can say they had nothing to do with it....good or bad. I see it as am immature lack of responsibility. You can listen to something and not agree with it.
ReplyDeletei admire their vote and their reasons for it but to willingly take themselves out of this important session was foolish and not in the best interest of the citizens.
ReplyDeleteThey voted in April to pay it off, this was a discussion on WHY the administration has not done what the council voted for them to do. Not "a very important session" and not something that should be discussed in a closed door session. The three who did not participate did the right thing in my eyes and i am sure it was just the administration saving face and not having their inability to do anything right aired in public
ReplyDelete"his was a discussion on WHY the administration has not done what the council voted for them to do"
ReplyDeleteNo, it was not. Why do you have to be dishonest. It was a meeting with attorneys, related to the swaption and the negotiations with the bank.
"If this was reibman calling for a closed door session, you would be livid."
ReplyDeleteThere is a time and place for executive sessions. I would be livid if there were a clear violation, but Longenbach gave a reasonable explanation. I might tend to disagree, but would have to read quite a bit more about the litigation exception before doing so.
First Stoffa costs us over $26 million by sitting on his hands for seven years and now he wants secret meetings. By the way, a solicitor will come up with a justification for anything a county executive wants. That is what they are paid for.
ReplyDeleteI believe Ron Angle boycotted executive sessions, sometimes he would go and tell the reporters what was said.
Stop the drama. These three are tired of the Stoffa nonsense like the rest of us. Good for them.
We all know who is to blame for the swaption. It was Reibman's 2004 folly, and any attempt to shift the blame is revisionist history. Reibman out Stoffa and Council both in an untenable "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position. I do not recall ANYONE, other than Stoffa ally Angle and Stoffa appointee Mazziotti, suggesting that something needed to be done until about this time last year. So don't try your bullshit here. In fact, people like McClure were suggesting Council just sit on their hands.
ReplyDeleteAnd i don't blame him either. No matter what route is taken, both Council and the Exec were forced by Reibman to roll the dice. Don't complain now that it did not fall the way you wanted.
Bernie -
ReplyDeleteI don't know about the specific situation other than what you've written, but I have some general thoughts:
If the three didn't think the Executive Session was justified, they were right to vote against it.
That said, I think they've done themselves (and the people they represent) a disservice by not attending the Executive Session. They now have NO first-hand knowledge about what was discussed, which may be important if the matter comes before them again. In addition, they also don't have first hand knowledge about whether the Executive Session was indeed inappropriate, should they want to challenge the Executive Session further (after the fact).
Finally, if they were joking with reporters from the dais, I think that's wrong and unprofessional. They could have stepped off the dais while the others were out and had private discussions with whoever they wanted.
So they where talking to the reporters on unrelated matters, now they can't be human either?
ReplyDeleteNo wonder no one runs for these seats and only 12% of the people even vote.
Statistical probability: Most of the comments are written by people who don't even cast a vote FOR a representative and really have no right to speak.
Get in the game, then run your mouth (or fingers on the keyboards)
At Least Bernie votes and is a ward boss or something like that, he can write whatever he wants, he is active and participates in the American process, So thanks Bernie for the blog
12:04 makes a good point by suggesting they short-changed themselves and the people they represent. I did not think of that. But I'd also agree with 12:45, who does not see anything inappropriate about joking with reporters while waiting. Maybe it was the way i wrote it, but I don't think they were being unprofessional.
ReplyDeleteIt very simple..If they don't think it's legal then they shouldnt be taking part in the action..If it turned to be illegal and they had decided to take part in the meeting anyway then they'd get hammered by the press for being a part of the illegal meeting. They were right.
ReplyDeleteThese three stooges looked like crows resting on a power line. What a joke! A bigger laugh is the Save Gracedale morons who ciriticise Stoffa for not paying off the swaption when he had a $35 million offer to buy the white elephant Gracedale but was shot down by the same morons. Only in Norco!!
ReplyDeleteBernie loves the, "damned if you do damned if you don't", argument. I blame the founding fathers, they created the system that lead to the swaption. Reibman was put in a damned if you do and damned if you don't position.
ReplyDeleteAfter all, leadership is all about waiting around and seeing which way the wind blows and then blaming the other guy.
"John Stoffa, boldly running backwards with his eyes closed."
A Council Person should not go into an executive session when they morally feel that an issue should be discussed publicly. Negotiations are an issue that may be discussed privately, especially when litigation is an option. In this case, three members of Coincil chose not to go into executive session. The issue must be discussed publicly before being voted on, No vote, no harm. The issue will be aired before a vote is taken.
ReplyDeleteSince word is Angle and Stoffa tell O'Hare everything they talk about in executive sessions, I don't see the big deal.
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting. Angle was not there and participated in no executive session. I have no idea what was discussed and asked no one about it. If you want to spread lies, at least try to be more convincing. I realize the elevator does not go to the top, but most of the people who read this blog see through people like you right away.
ReplyDeleteBoycotting an Executive Session is a rookie move and not very smart. Regardless if it is voted on in the public session.
ReplyDeleteIf they feel that strongly about this issue they would have made sure they were involved in all discussion pertaining to swaption.
How else can you size up your opponent trying to prove 'your own' point whether for or against unless you are involved in the discussions.
Funny how Kraft is noted in this article as being unopinionated. Big shock!! He mysteriously disappeared when his buddy Attiyeh came to the zoning board with his ridiculous proposals. Ha! Well, every board needs a patsy :)
ReplyDelete@ 10:23
ReplyDeleteI see Al Bernales reads this board also, what a tool he is. Always commenting like the uninformed bafoon that he proved he is over and over again in the city of bethlehem.
@4:39...oh dear...someone, ahem, has their panties in a bunch. I am not Al Bernotas, who by the way is a gentleman! Don't get upset if you make decisions that can later be judged when you voluntarily applied for that position and then put your friends monetary interest above the interest of your community.
ReplyDeleteThank you LaMont, you are trying to keep them honest and we appreciate that.
ReplyDelete