During the formation of the Tamaqua school district's recently-adopted mandatory drug and alcohol testing policy for students participating in co-curricular activities, an advisory committee met on a regular basis.

A question was raised as to whether the meetings, which were characterized as "closed door" sessions, were in violation of Pennsylvania's Open Meetings law, known as the Sunshine Act.Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pa. Newspaper Association (PNA), suggested that committees which advise boards regarding policy matters could fall under the Sunshine Law, meaning that they would have to be advertised and open to the public.Tamaqua school board president Larry A. Wittig disagrees in this case, stating that the committee was not appointed by the school board and was organized by the school district's administration in an advisory capacity, not to establish policy."There is nothing illegal going on," said Wittig, who is also member of the State Board of Education. "When you are creating policy, that is not open to the public, or else you would have 100 people at every faculty meeting. It's when policy is going to be voted on and ratified that it is open to the public."On June 22 the Tamaqua school board approved the new drug and alcohol policy, which requires students in grades 7-12 who wish to participate in district sponsored co-curricular activities such as sports, clubs or marching band, as well as seeking parking privileges, to take a mandatory drug screening for alcohol and illegal drugs.A positive test would result, pending possible appeal, in a suspension from the activities but not from school, and the student would be placed with an assistance program.The first round of mandatory testing takes place on Monday at the high school. Students will also be subjected to random testing as well during the school year.On Wednesday, during a public information session regarding the policy, Tracy Perry of West Penn Township and a former candidate for school board, asked why such a meeting was being held now, instead of gathering public input during the process.Stephen Toth, high school assistant principal, said there was a group discussion on the topic that met during the school year that included faculty members, administrators, paents, coaches and the district's medical staff.Perry asked how the parents were chosen, and was told the administration went with people with whom they had worked.Following the meeting, High School Principal RuthAnn Gardiner was questioned about those sessions by the media. She said there were 12-13 people on the committee, which met twice a month. When asked, she said they met behind closed doors. She did not name any of the committee members."If this group of people was authorized by the board to render advice on matters of official business such as a drug policy, they may be a committee for purposes of the Sunshine Act," said Melewsky when contacted via email Friday. "There is no distinction in the law between informal and formal committees and the law does not define 'committee'."What the law does say is that a committee authorized to render advice on matters of agency business is considered an agency by the Sunshine Act. As an agency, anytime a quorum discusses agency business, the Sunshine Act applies and the discussion must be public unless an exception applies."The school district offices are closed on Fridays during the summer. Attempts to reach district officials, as well as Solicitor Jeffrey Bowe, for comment and clarification on Friday were unsuccessful.Wittig, however, was vehement that no wrongdoing has occurred."We've had a Strategic Planning Committee that meets, but when it comes time for passage, then it comes up to the school board," explained Wittig. "An advisory committee doesn't have to be open under the Sunshine Act. That is absurd. They do not perform any ratification. The elected officials are the ones who do that. This is an attempt to make something out of nothing."Wittig said the school board had charged the administration with developing a drug testing policy, and consulting with this advisory group was part of the process of doing so."The board did not appoint this committee," stressed Wittig. "We told the administration to handle it and to do its due diligence."Melewsky said keeping open lines of communication with the public in such matters is in the community's best interest."There have been a few cases where the courts have weighed in on the meaning of committee," she explained. "Those cases are not particularly helpful on this issue, but what the courts have looked at is whether the committee has stepped into the shoes of the elected body and is exercising a governmental function. If the elected board has delegated some or all responsibility to a committee, the Sunshine Act should apply."Even if a court found the Sunshine Act did not apply, there is no law requiring this type of committee meeting to be private. It is in the public interest to have this type of discussion open to the public. The intent of the Sunshine Act is to foster public participation; anything less contradicts the spirit and intent of open government principles and ultimately, may do a disservice to the community."