Monessen man says actions taken at council meeting violate Sunshine Law
A Monessen resident has filed suit against the city鈥檚 mayor, accusing him of not allowing public comment on agenda items.
During a reorganization meeting on Jan. 6 at Monessen City Council, Ron Mozer and other residents questioned Mayor Matthew Shorraw about his absence from over 40 meetings since May 2018 during the public comment portion of the meeting.
鈥淗e refused to answer me and gave me a blank stare,鈥� Mozer said Tuesday.
Not receiving an answer, however, wasn鈥檛 the reason why Mozer filed civil action against Shorraw in Westmoreland County Court of Common Pleas.
鈥淚 was quite disappointed in the approach Mayor Shorraw actually took to running the meeting,鈥� Mozer said.
For him, it was Shorraw鈥檚 motions in the reorganization meeting to dismiss the existing and hire new people to fill the roles of city solicitor and city administrator; change the date and time of the council meetings; reinstate Grass Roots for Early Intervention; rescind an appointment to the sewage authority; advertise a position on the sewage authority; appoint four council members to their departments in a single motion; and adjourn the meeting without comments.
Mozer argued in the filing that those motions were not on the agenda, nor was public comment on those agenda items allowed, as is required by state law.
The law cited, Title 65, Sections 710-710.01, deals with rules and regulations for conduct of meetings.
It states that residents are to comment on 鈥渕atters of concern, official action or deliberation which are or may be before the board or council prior to taking official action.鈥�
The section also states that the council has the option to accept all public comment at the beginning of the meeting, which happened at the beginning of the meeting in question.
The section goes on to state that, if the council determines there鈥檚 not sufficient time at a meeting for public comment, the council may defer public comment to the next regular meeting or to a special meeting before the next regular meeting.
鈥淚t鈥檚 not that I disagree with what he鈥檚 (Shorraw) doing, but I do disagree with the depth he鈥檚 going about getting it done,鈥� Mozer said.
He contended Shorraw鈥檚 actions were not in accordance with the spirit of a city council meeting and not in the spirit of what the state law requires the council meeting to be.
Shorraw said questions could be directed to the city鈥檚 solicitor, Tim Witt, who received the filing, but didn鈥檛 have a chance to review it.
Witt, who was not present at the meeting, said it鈥檚 his understanding that it was a reorganization meeting where such motions are made and general public comment was conducted at the start of the meeting.
鈥淲e鈥檙e in the process of reviewing the complaint and are taking it seriously,鈥� Witt said, adding that he will make sure what occurred adheres to the state鈥檚 Sunshine Law. If corrective action is necessary, Witt said he would ensure that occurs.
Under Title 65, a judge can bar any changes from being made until a determination is made about whether the action was legal.
鈥淪hould the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any or all official action taken at the meeting shall be invalid. Should the court determine that the meeting met the requirements of this chapter, all official action taken at the meeting shall be fully effective,鈥� the statute reads.
Violating the statute with 鈥渋ntent and purpose鈥� can result in a summary citation, and fines that range between $100 and $2,000.