Fines suggested for 3 Charleroi Council members
CHARLEROI – Borough council attempted to fine three of its members Wednesday, claiming that a statement they gave last month to the Observer-Reporter regarding a separation agreement with the former borough manager violated confidentiality of an executive session.
Councilman Larry Celaschi made a motion to fine Jerry Jericho, Jeannine Motycki and Nancy Ellis up to $500 each for “violating executive session.” Councilman Joe Smith provided the second. After a lengthy discussion, the motion was tabled.
Jericho and Motycki questioned what the violations were, and Celaschi said it could not be discussed because it was talked about in executive session.
When making his motion, Celaschi cited borough Resolution No. 6 of 2020, which was adopted by council June 10 of that year.
The last paragraph of the resolution states, “Any Council member present at an executive session to have been found to divulge information determined to be attorney-client privilege may be fined up to $500, with the approval of a majority of Council members, and/or censured by a vote of a majority of Council members. The fine shall be acted on during a Council meeting and shall be consistent with State Law, Roberts Rules of Order, and the parliamentary rules of Council.”
When council met Feb. 9, a separation agreement with former borough manager Joe Manning was approved in a 4-3 vote, with Ellis, Jericho and Motycki voting no. When questioned the next day about her vote, Motycki said she was speaking on behalf of the three who were opposed.
“The three of us that voted no think very highly of Joe’s work,” Motycki said at the time. “The reason we voted no was because we three have not received (or) seen amounts, the resignation letter. We have not received anything. We didn’t feel it was right to vote on something that we have no knowledge of. According to our solicitor, we are not permitted to disclose any information to the public, but the public also needs to keep in mind that anybody can do a right-to-know (request).”
Motycki and Jericho asked Wednesday what violations they were being accused of committing.
“Tell us about these executive session violations,” Motycki said. “Nothing was violated in that O-R article that I quoted the three of us saying …. You can’t charge us with something without telling us what it is.”
“I want to know what you’re referring to,” Jericho said. “I want you to tell me what was a violation. I want these people to hear what it is.”
Celaschi said the matter was discussed in executive session and can’t be discussed in public.
“We’re in this situation because of a violation of executive session,” Celaschi added. “I’m not going to be put in the same situation of violating an executive session.”
Solicitor Sean Logue said he couldn’t discuss the allegations in public, but did say advice he provided was ignored.
“My advice to borough council members about discussing certain aspects of executive session, that advice was ignored and discussed openly with the press,” he said.
When contacted Thursday, Melissa Melewsky, legal counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said she felt the resolution “had a lot of problems” and was not enforceable.
“Individual elected officials have a constitutional right, and in some cases a legal duty, to discuss what happens in executive session,” she said. “They are in the best position to know whether or not what happened during executive session is appropriate under the law. They’re firsthand witnesses. They have an obligation to talk about it.”
When asked Thursday if he thought the resolution was enforceable, Logue, who was not the borough solicitor when the resolution was drafted, said, “I think that’s to be debated.”
Wednesday’s motion was tabled until Logue can work with Celaschi to craft the allegations in a way that the public would understand while adhering to rules for executive session.