Smith v. Township of Richmond
82 A.3d 407
Pa.2013Background
- Richmond Township Board held four closed-door "gatherings" (quorum present) with neighboring municipalities, a citizens group, and Lehigh Cement during pending litigation over quarry expansion.
- Solicitor described the gatherings as "executive sessions" for information-gathering; Board later voted in public to accept a settlement submitted by Lehigh Cement.
- Smith (resident) sued under the Sunshine Act, alleging the closed gatherings involved deliberations about Township business and thus should have been open.
- Depositions described the gatherings as fact-finding; some questions at the Lehigh meeting arose from earlier gatherings and informed the later settlement.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Township; Commonwealth Court affirmed; Supreme Court granted limited review to decide whether information-gathering with litigation parties can constitute "deliberations."
Issues
| Issue | Smith's Argument | Township's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the closed gatherings constituted "deliberations" under the Sunshine Act | Gatherings were held to obtain information to guide settlement decisions; purpose was making a decision even if vote came later | Gatherings were solely for information-gathering/education, not debate or decision-making | Held: No. Deliberation requires discussion "for the purpose of making a decision" (weighing/comparing options); these were informational only |
| Whether meeting with opposing litigation parties transforms information exchange into deliberation | Presence of litigants and subsequent reliance on info shows purpose was to prepare settlement terms | Inviting litigants for facts does not convert inquiry into deliberation; information-gathering is permitted | Held: Presence of litigation parties raises public skepticism but does not per se make session a deliberation; facts control |
| Whether an agency member’s later vote based chiefly on information obtained privately converts prior gatherings into deliberations | If the private information was the basis for the vote, the earlier gatherings were effectively for decision-making | Reliance on privately gathered information does not retroactively make prior inquiry a deliberation | Held: No. Using information later does not transform a bona fide fact-finding session into a deliberative meeting |
| Remedy: Whether a subsequent public vote cures any prior Sunshine Act violation and whether courts can invalidate later official action | Smith sought invalidation of actions taken during or as a result of the closed meetings | Township argued that public approval at an open meeting cures prior procedural defects and §713 limits invalidation to actions taken at the unlawful meeting | Held: Court noted prevailing law: courts cannot invalidate a later public action that complied with the Act; but court did not need to apply remedy here because it found no violation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sovich v. Shaughnessy, 705 A.2d 942 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (Sunshine Act does not require all fact-finding to occur in public)
- Belle Vernon Area Concerned Citizens v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Rostraver Twp., 487 A.2d 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (officials may investigate and study matters outside public meetings)
- Conners v. West Greene Sch. Dist., 569 A.2d 978 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (distinction between discussion and deliberation; informal discussion permissible)
- Kennedy v. Upper Milford Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 834 A.2d 1104 (Pa. 2003) (plaintiff bears burden to prove Sunshine Act violation given presumption of regularity)
- Trib Total Media, Inc. v. Highlands Sch. Dist., 3 A.3d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (contrast where officials conceded deliberations occurred at private meeting)
- Ackerman v. Upper Mt. Bethel Twp., 567 A.2d 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (§713 does not permit invalidation of later public action taken after an improper private meeting)
- ACORN v. SEPTA, 789 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (later open meeting can cure a prior Sunshine Act violation)