Source: https://pattyebenson.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/raising-the-fine-on-sunshine-law-violation-to-1000-for-first-offense/
Timestamp: 2018-02-20 02:00:17
Document Index: 34361834

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 714', '§ 714', '§ 715', '§ 713', '§ 714', '§ 715']

Raising the Fine on Sunshine Law Violation to $1,000 for First Offense | Tredyffrin Township . . . Community Matters
Posted on March 18, 2010 by Pattye Benson
An interesting piece of proposed change to the Sunshine Law surfaced this week in Harrisburg. The change was passed by the House and, if passed by the Senate, would effect Tredyffrin Township and our Board of Supervisors. The State House of Representatives amended the state’s Sunshine Law by upping the fines for a first violation of the government openness law from $100 to $1,000 and to $2,000 for each subsequent violation.
This is an nteresting topic . . . what do you think the penalty should be for breaking the Sunshine Law? Or should there be a penalty?
« Our Fire Companies Should Not be Political Pawns Community Matters . . . Important Update, Please Read »
Chet, on March 18, 2010 at 9:18 AM said:
I think the penalty should be death of the first born. I mean, this is just another example of how we have become a lawyered up state. I mean, why can’t we all just get along, do an honest job, communicate well and play by the rules? Oh, I forgot, the world is full of Warren Kampf’s.
More litigation, acrimony. ba humbug. Of COURSE there should be SUNSHINE… it just depresses me that we need more laws, fines, litigation…finger pointing. There will come a time that no honest man/woman will come forward to run. Then the meek and the wicked will have inherited the earth. yes pattye, fine the pants off of the supervisors. maybe one day they will be all Democrats. But then I am sure the rules won’t apply.
JudgeNJury, on March 18, 2010 at 9:56 AM said:
The monetary fine appears to be criminal, not civil, in nature: “Any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose by that member of violating the chapter commits a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding $100 plus costs of prosecution.” 65 Pa. C.S. § 714. Since this section talks about a “summary offense,” a “conviction” and a “sentenc[ing],” I am almost positive that it applies only to cases where a member of an agency is criminally prosecuted for violating the Act. In other words, a private citizen who brought a civil lawsuit would not be entitled to ask the court to impose a fine under § 714, whether it is $100 or $1,000.
The Act gives the courts broad discretion to fashion any appropriate remedy in a civil suit brought by a private citizen: The courts have jurisdiction to “render declaratory judgments or to enforce this chapter by injunction or other remedy deemed appropriate by the court.” 65 Pa. C.S. § 715.
The main “penalty” in the Act is the nullification of any action taken in violation of the Act: “Should the court determine that the meeting did not meet the requirements of this chapter, it may in its discretion find that any of all official action taken at the meeting shall be invalid.” 65 Pa. C.S. § 713.
The biggest monetary risk in a civil case is attorney’s fees, which can be substantial: “If the court determines that any agency willfully or with wanton disregard violated a provision of this chapter, in whole or in part, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation or an appropriate portion of the fees and costs.” 65 Pa. C.S. § 714.1.
As for standing, a claim under the Sunshine Act “may be brought by any person where the agency whose act is complained of is located or where the act complained of occurred.” 65 Pa. C.S. § 715.
Pattye Benson, on March 18, 2010 at 10:48 AM said:
Sarah, on March 18, 2010 at 12:16 PM said:
So anyone could bring a complaint to the police if they believed the act had been violated?
The exceptions are personnel (including strategy for negotiations), Real estate, ligitation, and other matters which would involve privileged information regarding an individual.
http://webpages.charter.net/gdsbmmllp/sunshine.htm
This seems like a silly “upping” of what up to now has been a huge wall to climb — as proving a violation would require those present to admit to the violation…so does the fine get assessed to the body or to individuals?
JudgeNJury, on March 18, 2010 at 6:50 PM said:
To make this easier to understand, consider this hypothetical: Let’s say the Board of Supervisors got together in a conference room outside of public view and decided to enter into a contract with a landscaping company to prune trees on Township property, but did not discuss or vote on the contract at a public meeting. Once the contract became public knowledge, anyone could go the police or local prosecutor and file a criminal complaint alleging that the Board violated the Act. It would then be up to the prosecutor to determine whether to bring criminal charges against the members of the Board. If the prosecutor brought charges and obtained a conviction, the Act says that the members of the agency – i.e., the individual Board members – would have to pay the fine. The fine would be paid, I think, to either the court or the prosecutor’s office.
At the same time, any resident of the Township also could bring a separate CIVIL action against the Township. If the resident prevailed, the court could invalidate the contract with the landscaper. The court also could order any “other remedy deemed appropriate by the court.” If the court determined that the Board members acted “willfully,” the court also could order the Township to reimburse the resident for his attorney’s fees.
Proving a violation under this hypothetical would not be difficult. You would have the contract. And you would have all of the minutes and video from the Board meetings showing that the Board did not discuss or vote on the contract at a public meeting.
Pattye Benson, on March 18, 2010 at 6:59 PM said:
Your hypothetical case does make it much easier to understand the Sunshine Law. I guess the key here is the ‘proving of the violation’. Thank you for your explanation.
Township Reader, on March 19, 2010 at 12:43 PM said:
Thanks to JnJ for the hypothetical — it’s pretty straightforward there. How do you get around the fear that our own BOS made the SDGC decision out of the sunshine? Or does it being real estate, or potential ligitation give them cover?
Main Line Times has a Lower Merion commissioner explaining their use of a “pre board” meeting — maybe it’s easier to read when it’s not coming from “one of our own” — but certainly offers some points for discussion.
http://mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/03/19/main_line_times/opinion/doc4ba1740cd3ea0212284714.txt