Lansford Borough Council may have run afoul of the state’s Sunshine Law when meeting behind closed doors ahead of a special meeting last month.

The mayor and three council members wanted the May 28 special meeting minutes to reflect that they believed the executive session held immediately prior was a violation of the Sunshine Law.

Mayor Denise Leibensperger told council that she wanted that noted, and Council members Bruce Markovich, Gwyneth Collevechio and Michele Bartek wanted to be added in the objection.

Council President Joe Genits had announced the executive session was for personnel, contract discussion and informational regarding a grant that the borough had received.

On Tuesday, Markovich said the topics covered in the executive session didn’t qualify under the executive session exemptions, as council met new personnel from ARRO Consulting, the borough engineer, and discussed a grant the borough received.

Genits explained that ARRO wanted the executive session to introduce the new personnel that would be working with the borough, following some resignations at the firm.

Council also met with Jonas Crass of the state Department of Community and Economic Development and Ben Kafferlin of Kafferlin Associates, the consulting firm chosen for the Strategic Management Planning Program, for which the borough received a $71,595 grant during the executive session.

Genits called the closed-door meeting regarding the grant-funded program and the work the consultant would be doing with the borough an “informational” session related to the contract.

Council selected Kafferlin months ago for the program and had been waiting to see if the borough received the grant to execute the contract with the firm, which it did in mid-May.

During the special meeting, council went on to appoint Shannon Darker, an ARRO employee, as a zoning officer, and also heard from the consulting firm handling the Strategic Management Planning Program, for which the borough received the DCED grant.

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, the Sunshine Law is triggered by a quorum of council discussing agency business.

“Introducing contractors to the board isn’t subject to the personnel executive session, but it’s not ‘deliberation of agency business’ if the board just listened and didn’t discuss anything,” she said.

However, discussion or deliberation of the agency business is a different matter, she said.

“If the board discussed the details of grant-funded programs, that would likely be deliberation of agency business not subject to executive session exceptions,” Melewsky said.

Genits told council members and the mayor that they could go to county court to file a suit, as they have 30 days to do so, when they wanted the violation noted on the record.

Melewsky explained that anyone who believes there’s been a violation of the law can pursue civil and/or criminal penalties under the act, she said.

“There is no Sunshine Act oversight agency,” she said. “It is a citizen enforced law. To pursue the civil penalties, one must file a lawsuit in county court, ideally with the assistance of experienced counsel.

“To pursue the criminal penalties against individual elected officials, one must file a private criminal complaint with the district attorney, who will then decide whether criminal charges are appropriate,” Melewsky said.

A court can fashion appropriate remedies including fines, fees, injunctions, invalidation of contracts, policies, or decisions (votes) or other penalties, she explained.

“In the criminal context, it is a summary offense to violate the act, punishable by a fine of at least $100 and up to $1,000 for a first offense plus court costs, and up to $2,000 plus court costs for second and subsequent offenses,” Melewsky said about the penalties.

After the May 28 meeting, Leibensperger said that she and the others wanted the possible violation noted to protect themselves, in case someone filed a complaint with county court.

This week, Markovich said they hadn’t decided whether they would pursue legal action themselves.

In defense of the executive session, Genits pointed out that no one, including those wanting the violation noted left the alleged “illegal” meeting, if there was a problem.

Residents and one council member again raised Sunshine Law issues Tuesday, when a council workshop failed to have a quorum for the first 40 minutes.

Genits allowed for public comment during that time and updated residents and council members who were present on items listed on the agenda during that time, calling the session informational.

He then recapped the items discussed when additional council members arrived, giving them a quorum. He asked for input from them on the item covered and then continued with the meeting.

“I don’t see a Sunshine Act issue here as long as the public was given the opportunity to provide input once a quorum showed up,” Melewsky said.

“As for it being an “informational” meeting, the terminology used to describe a meeting isn’t relevant under the law,” she said. “What matters is whether there is a quorum deliberating agency business or taking officials action, and if so, the Sunshine Act applies.”

Public input and questions were allowed throughout the workshop session and not limited to the designated public courtesy portion only.