Hearing held in Sunshine Act case
By STACY WOLFORD
swolford@yourmvi.com
The video speaks for itself.
That’s the consensus of attorneys representing the Mon Valley Independent and a Monessen resident in a lawsuit claiming Mayor Matt Shorraw violated the state’s Sunshine Act.
The lawsuit, filed Feb. 17 by Uniontown attorney James Davis on behalf of the Mon Valley Independent and Tina O’Dell, alleges Shorraw violated the Sunshine Act during the Jan. 6 city council reorganization meeting, which was Shorraw’s first after a 40-meeting absence.
The lawsuit alleges Shorraw substituted his own agenda for the one presented to the public for comment. The suit names Shorraw individually and the City of Monessen as defendants.
After public comment ended, Shorraw made a motion to terminate the services of Dodaro, Matta and Cambest and to fire solicitor Joseph Dalfonso. That motion was not on the publicly distributed agenda, the suit states. The suit makes the same claim regarding the motions made that night to retain a new solicitor, to terminate City Administrator Judith Taylor, to retain a new city administrator (John Harhai), to restrict access to security camera videos, to rescind Brooke Farmer’s appointment to the Mon Valley Sewage Authority and to advertise a vacancy on the sewage authority.
During a hearing Thursday morning, Westmoreland County Common Pleas Judge Harry F. Smail Jr. heard arguments from Davis and associate Michael A. Aubele. Shorraw attended the hearing with city Solicitor Matt Jaynes of Connellsville.
During the proceeding, both Davis and Jaynes agreed a video recording of the Jan. 6 reorganization by the newspaper is the best source of evidence in the case. But both sides offered differing opinions on whether or not Shorraw violated the Sunshine Act.
According to the Sunshine Act, members of the public have the right to raise objections to perceived violations of the law at any meeting. The suit states that available video of the meeting, filmed by the Mon Valley Independent, shows members of the public and council members repeatedly raising objections. The suit states that Shorraw’s actions at the meeting are in direct violation of the Sunshine Act, specifically the provisions regarding public participation.
During questioning by Davis, O’Dell testified she attended the Jan. 6 reorganization meeting where she received an agenda, but none of the actions taken at the meeting were listed on it.
“We couldn’t comment on the agenda items because they weren’t on the agenda,” O’Dell said.
During cross-examination, Jaynes asked O’Dell if she knew that hiring or firing a solicitor “does not have to go on the agenda,” and if she knew Taylor’s contract as city administrator “was up.”
When Davis objected to the relevancy of those questions, Jaynes responded there have been “five months of business” since the Jan. 6 meeting.
“That’s not a response,” Judge Smail said.
Davis countered that the time lapse since the Jan. 6 meeting is “irrelevant.”
Jaynes argued the motions on Jan. 6 were ratified at a March 29 council meeting.
“Not all motions are required to be on an agenda,” Jaynes said, adding that any decision to overturn those motions would cause “much more harm than good.”
Davis disagreed and said council’s action March 29 to ratify the Jan. 6 meeting motions was a “failed attempt” to correct what was done illegally.
“In this case, they had a meeting and a number of very important actions were taken. Then, guess what, there is no public comment taken. They don’t want that. They want to brazenly violate the Sunshine Act. The video speaks for itself,” Davis said.
If the court decides the meeting did not meet the requirements of the Sunshine Act, it may find that any action taken at that meeting is invalid, the Sunshine Act states.
As such, the lawsuit asks the court to void the motions made Jan. 6.
The suit also asks the court to prevent Shorraw and council from taking any of the following actions: denying public comment before official business, distributing an inaccurate agenda or intentionally concealing official business they intend to act upon.
The suit also asks the court to require the defendants to attend a public session instructing them on the Sunshine Act and its requirements.
The suit requests attorneys’ fees and costs, but the newspaper’s attorneys said this filing is not about what is awarded.
“We’re here to uphold the Sunshine Act and to hold them accountable for not following the law,” Davis said.
Smail gave both sides 20 days to present additional court briefs, during which time the judge will review the recording of the Jan. 6 council meeting before rendering a decision.
This is the third suit filed in relation to the Jan. 6 meeting. City resident Ron Mozer and former Monessen Mayor Lou Mavrakis filed suits last month in Westmoreland County Court that made similar claims on Sunshine Act violations. Mozer’s hearing is set for 10:30 a.m. June 16 before Westmoreland County Judge Rita Hathaway.
Stacy Wolford is managing editor at the Mon Valley Independent.
