After reading Donohue’s response several times, I was more confused as to why something as important as this policy was not required to be on the agenda, http://tredyffrin.org/boards/bos/agenda.aspx Although I thought it was about the Sunshine Act, apparently one needs to look at the Home Rule Charter for clarification. As a former member of BOS and Zoning Hearing Board, I asked John Petersen his opinion — here’s his response. (For the record, Michelle Kichline, Sam Stretton and Vince Donohue were cc’d on the email.)

“Again, I’m always accused of over-simplification. I’ll direct you to Tredyffrin Home Rule Charter – Section 211 Records and Reports – Paragraph C. My reading of that, which could be inaccurate, pretty much says that what is to be considered and voted on at a meeting shall be enumerated in an agenda that has to be posted no later than 8 hours before the next meeting.

My review of: http://www.tredyffrin.org/boards/bos/agenda.aspx – shows that the item you are looking for is not enumerated in the agenda. In my opinion, given the time the meeting starts and the current time, there is a clear violation of the Home Rule Charter.

Reading Vin’s explanation to you – causes me concern as it is completely at odds with the plain language of the Home Rule Charter and Administrative Code. Given that this issue was discussed before – makes it old business. It’s clearly not new business.

As to the Sunshine Act – http://www.openrecordspa.org/sunshine.html – interestingly enough, specific matters regarding agenda requirements are not covered. Nevertheless, the clear legislative intent of the Sunshine Act is to both facilitate and protect public participation.
Custom in Tredyffrin has always been to be inclusive as to Agenda items. In recent memory, the only overt/by design omission was when Paul Olson wanted to release St. David’s from it’s sidewalk obligations. There were other provisions in the HRC/Admin Code at play. Then, as perhaps here – the goal is to discourage/suppress public comment. Given the importance of the topic as well as the controversey surriounding this matter, one would think that extra care would be taken to make sure the I’s were dotted and the T’s were crossed.

As a former member of the board as well as the ZHB – I’m more than a little offended here. Sadly, given events of the past 8 years, I’m not shocked at this sort of behavior of the manner in which it is attempted to be explained away.

Pattye – one thing to remember – this BoS operates with ZERO rules of procedure. I called this out about 5 years ago. Chairman Kampf at the time promised the matter would be addressed and resolved. To date, the BoS has not adopted any sort of Parliamentary Procedure – such as Robert’s Rules of Order. We have seen cases where motions have been made, seconded – and then never voted upon.

In summary, when you look at the plain language of the HRC/Admin code, coupled with Tredyffrin’s customary practice (excluding things like St. David’s which were proven to be illegal) – and you square that up with what you see here – in my opinion – setting aside the Sunshine Act for a moment, this is a clear violation of the rules. As to the Sunshine Act – it’s a closer question – but in my opinion – if nothing else – it’s a violation of the spirit of the HRC.

It may very well be that one’s opinion is shaped by one’s pre-disposition to transparency.

JVP

————————————————————————————————–

One other thing…

Consider this item in the agenda http://tredyffrin.org/boards/bos/agenda.aspx :

**
Adopt resolution approving the 2013 budget for the Tredyffrin Township Municipal Authority
**

Vin said: “The Board intends to adopt a policy by resolution, which does not require any advertisement.”

Under Vin’s logic, the resolution to adopt the 2013 budget didn’t need to be on the Agenda. Nevertheless, it is listed – as it should be.

Adopting a website policy of which the BoS intends to govern itself is absolutely “Township Business”. And per the HRC/Admin Code – township business that is to be dealt with at a meeting needs to be on an agenda.

Now you have to ask yourself why one thing got included and another thing didn’t. We can take “scrivner error” and “mistake” off the plate because Vin told you this didn’t need to be advertised. It should be noted that “Advertised” is a term of art and that was not what you asked him. You asked him why the item was not included in the agenda. The meeting is what is advertised. This is not a public hearing – which has it’s own set of advertising requirements.

I’m left with no other conclusion than given the controversey surrounding this matter, the agenda item being left off was a deliberate act of ommission.

Simply put, they can’t start cherry-picking items they wish/not wish to include in an agenda. Again – the HRC/Admin Code makes it clear this item should have been included.

I think that is all that has to be said on the matter.

JVP