Muncy Twp. Supervisor and board Chair Terri Lauchle listens to comments from Supervisor Heath Ohnmeiss as agenda items were read during the board meeting Wednesday evening. Many questions from the public were about if the agenda for that evening’s meeting had changed overnight according to people in the audience. DAVE KENNEDY/Sun-Gazette

The Muncy Township Board of Supervisors appear to be in violation of the state Sunshine Act as they had removed public comment on meeting agenda items, causing an eruption inside the packed room in Pennsdale.

“Madam Chair, you are inviting a lawsuit,” said Ambrose Heinz, providing legal representation to FAMVEST, the developer of a proposed Bass Pro Shop at the site of the former Best Buy on grounds of The District, formerly the Lycoming Mall and surrounding parcels. He was referring to not being able to make a public comment on agenda items, as was listed online 24 hours in advance of the meeting but vanished mysteriously for the meeting.

The meeting was rife with oddities, outbursts, angry residents and developers with one declaring it was absurd.

Supervisor and board Chair Terri Lauchle, Supervisor and Vice Chair Denise Artley — participating remotely — and Supervisor Heath Ohnmeiss were present.

Ohnmeiss frequently has voted against several motions or abstained due to his research with the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, who told him that what was being conducted was improper procedure at best, and potentially violating the state law.

Later on in the meeting, echoing Heinz’ concerns about meeting procedure, Michael Wiley, an attorney who provides legal representation to nearby Muncy Creek Township supervisors, told the board that the agenda item that was listed a day before and no longer on the agenda at the meeting was “improper.”

“There was an agenda posted online yesterday, which is appropriate,” Wiley said. “But that had on it a public comment section on agenda items. … For some reason, that was removed on the agenda today.”

The township secretary chimed in by saying she did not know it was on the online agenda and why.

“It was,” Wiley said. “The version online properly stated that there was a public comment period on agenda items, prior to the action on agenda items.”

Lauchle indicated that she was not aware the agenda was altered.

Wiley reminded the board how there were a number of people at the meeting saying the board was required to have a public comment period on agenda items.

Additionally, there was a question about who the board solicitor is. Wiley said he did not want to get into that or debate that because Lauchle and Artley have affirmed it remained Perciballi & Williams. But Wiley recommended to the chair, very strongly, that she get with the solicitor about how she conducted the meeting.

“Okay,” Lauchle said.

“So, you posted online last night 24 hours before the meeting as you are required to do that you would have public comment on agenda items,” Wiley said. “You then had an agenda here tonight that removed that. You then denied (Heinz) opportunity to speak on an agenda item.

You then decided that because he spoke after the agenda item you could not go back to that agenda item and correct it. There (are) serious legal issues with that process.”

“Okay,” Lauchle replied.

” I see you with your papers in front of you. I see your planning commission with their papers in front of you. I see you saying you want to do things correctly. I am going to take that and accept that at face value,” Wiley said. “You need to do things correctly. Removing public comment on agenda items is improper. … Denying the opportunity for people to speak on agenda items prior to action on those agenda items is improper.”

Wiley thanked the board for confirming the solicitor firm remains that of Perciballi & Williams. Lauchle and Artley affirmed the solicitorship remains with the city-based firm with Artley saying over the phone that she cc’d or carbon copied any emails to that law firm.