Trending
Muncy Township officials facing allegations of Sunshine Act violations by a township resident retained services of a southeastern Pennsylvania law firm which recently filed preliminary objections in the civil case in Lycoming County Court.
The preliminary objections filed by Siana Law of Chester Springs, a community near West Chester, related to the lawsuit by township resident Cori Cotner against the township Board of Supervisors, the township's planning commission, Supervisors Terri L. Lauchle, chair, and Denise B. Artley, vice chair, and planning commission member Lawrence Spatz, cite violations of the state's Sunshine Act, which governs public meetings.
Cotner has asserted that numerous times the state law regarding public meetings was violated by the defendants. Cotner cites meetings where she claims violations such as not permitting public comment on agenda items. Her allegations begin with the failure of the township to hold a reorganizational meeting Jan. 5, and continue through April. These alleged violations of the state Sunshine Act were published in a prior Sun-Gazette news story.
Her allegations include noting Lauchle shut down public comment at the end of the April 29 special meeting and calling state police when attendees lingered in the township building.
She seeks a court order declaring actions taken at the March 11, April 3, and April 29 meetings null and void.
Cotner's amended complaint seeks the imposition of fines and costs, according to the suit.
Siana Law's attorneys agree that the Sunshine Act permits fines and costs upon the conviction of summary criminal offenses.
As an example, for a first offense, this can be the cost of prosecution plus a fine of at least $100 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $1,000. For a second or subsequent offense, the costs of prosecution plus a fine of at least $500 and, in the discretion of the sentencing authority, of not more than $2,000, according to the state law.
However, the Siana Law attorneys presented an argument that the amended complaint does not "aver" -- state something with total confidence -- that the defendants were convicted of summary criminal offenses.
Moreover, Cotner's amended complaint also does, they said, "not give rise to recovery as a matter of law."
Additionally, the attorneys argue, the complaint fails to conform to the rule of court because it fails to include what is known as a case monitoring notice, a requirement under Lycoming County Rule of Civil Procedure, according to Siana Law's filing.
Because of this, the law firm has asserted the court judge should determine that Cotner's claim is legally insufficient and fails to "give rise to recovery" as a matter of law, according to Siana Law's filing.