Solicitor clarifies comments on municipal authority

Douglas Sepic explained that he doesn’t have a personal stake in the supervisors’ decision.

Following a discussion at Wednesday’s Washington Township supervisors meeting regarding the status of the municipal authority, Solicitor Douglas Sepic reached out to the Mon Valley Independent to clarify the context behind statements he made to residents.

Sepic stated that he said, “I don’t care because it doesn’t affect me,” not “I don’t care because it doesn’t upset me” when he was questioned about his intentions and involvement with the now-postponed municipal authority ordinance and the township’s Sept. 17 water plant tour.

Sepic clarified that his statement concerned the absence of a personal or professional stake in the outcome of the situation, not an absence of concern for the residents of the township.

“My comment was intended to explain that I have no personal stake in the ultimate decision concerning the municipal authority,” Sepic said. “I do not reside in Washington Township, I am not an authority customer, and the outcome will not affect my water service, property or household.

“I expressly acknowledged that township residents are understandably concerned and upset, because the decision may directly affect them. My point was not that I am indifferent to those concerns. My point was that, because I am not personally affected by the outcome, I am approaching my role objectively, and I intend to provide legal advice to the supervisors without favoring any particular result.”

Sepic clarified that his intention is to provide the township with objective legal advice, not influence on passing policy or legal decisions. He stated that the supervisors alone make the final decisions that will affect the township.

“I was appointed as special counsel for the limited purpose of advising the township concerning the legal and procedural issues involving the municipal authority,” Sepic said. “I do not make policy decisions for the township, and I am not the township’s general solicitor who advises the supervisors on all other legal matters.

“My responsibility is to provide the supervisors with objective legal advice, identify the legal and financial issues that must be investigated and ensure that any action they may consider is undertaken carefully, transparently, and in accordance with Pennsylvania law.

“That includes determining the authority’s assets, debts, contractual obligations, regulatory obligations, and other liabilities before the township makes any final decision. It is not my role to decide whether the township should acquire the authority’s projects or assets, whether it should maintain them, or whether any assets should ultimately be transferred or sold. Those are policy decisions that belong to the supervisors alone.”

Sepic empathizes with residents of Washington Township, saying that he understands that decisions that could directly affect their livelihood could cause them to feel anger and worry. Sepic stated that he reassures everyone involved that he will do his best to ensure any decision proceeds properly in accordance with all laws and regulations.

“I completely understand why residents are concerned,” he said. “Decisions involving public water and sewer service, public debt, rates, infrastructure, and long-term municipal obligations are serious matters that can directly affect their families and property. If the supervisors ultimately determine that they wish to move forward with the acquisition of the authority’s assets and debts, my responsibility is to

help ensure that the supervisors proceed lawfully and with a full understanding of the obligations involved.

“A responsible process requires the collection and review of financial records, debts, contracts, property interests, regulatory requirements and other information. It also requires legal documents and coordination with creditors and governmental agencies. I am not advocating for a predetermined outcome. If the supervisors decide not to proceed, I have no personal or professional interest in persuading them otherwise.”

Sepic stated that, while he can’t speak on behalf of any of the supervisors, he urged them to make their views and policy considerations known to ease residents’ concerns. Sepic expressed that he hopes to see everyone involved proceed with civility and mutual respect in future meetings going forward.

“Residents have every right to ask difficult questions, express disagreement, and demand complete information from their public officials,” Sepic said. “At the same time, constructive public discussion is most productive when it focuses on the facts and issues rather than personal attacks. I understand why many residents believe that they were not sufficiently informed or given a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the beginning of this process.

“The meeting at which the supervisors authorized advertisement of the proposed ordinance was lawfully advertised and open to the public, but only a few members of the public attended. The proposed ordinance was also advertised as required by law. Nevertheless, legal notice and meaningful public awareness are not always the same thing.”

Sepic stated that many residents felt that the decision had already been made by the township without their input or participation, which led to further escalation of emotions and concerns. Sepic also acknowledged that the township had lacked significant portions of information that contributed to residents’ growth in concern and anger.

“By the time the broader community understood the significance of the proposal, many residents believed that the matter had already been decided without their participation. Whether or not that perception accurately reflects what occurred, it is real and should not be dismissed. The original timetable was also very compressed, and the township’s information concerning the authority was incomplete. Those circumstances created a legal concern from my perspective and contributed to the public’s belief that the process was moving too quickly.

“Obviously, the township did not adopt the proposed ordinance. That decision has afforded and continues to afford the residents a fair opportunity to ask questions, and ensures that everyone will have a complete understanding of the matter before any final decision is made.”