McKean County Judge John Yoder ruled that the McKean County
commissioners did not violate the Sunshine Law by not giving a
Hamlin Township man a chance to talk during a meeting last year in
which the board dissolved the McKean County Solid Waste
Authority.

Bill Belitskus sued commissioners John Egbert, Cliff Lane and
Bruce Burdick and claimed that he was not given the opportunity to
talk during a Nov. 5, 2005, commissioner meeting. Belitskus filed a
complaint under the Sunshine Act, alleging the meeting violated the
act because he was not given the opportunity to comment.

However, Yoder, in granting the commissioners’ motion for
summary judgment, disagreed with Belitskus by stating the
commissioners gave a reasonable amount of time for public comment
during the meeting.

The commissioners met Nov. 5 and dissolved the solid waste
authority. Earlier in the week, the SWA had voted to release $3.8
million to municipalities in the county, a move the commissioners
wanted to quell.

The commissioners were given an opportunity to stop the release
of money when it was discovered the SWA’s earlier meeting was not
legal since it was not advertised.

The commissioners met at 9 a.m. Nov. 5, a Saturday, one hour
before the SWA was scheduled to meet to re-vote the release of the
money to municipalities. After the commissioner meeting, Egbert was
escorted by Smethport Borough Police across the street so he could
hand-deliver the resolution dissolving SWA to the SWA board. He had
to go through a “human wall” of concerned citizens to deliver the
resolution.

SWA ended up distributing the money to municipal officials on
the street next to the courthouse.

Belitskus’ cause of action was threefold – that he is a resident
or taxpayer in a political subdivision; the commissioners failed to
provide a reasonable opportunity for residents and taxpayers to
comment; and the commissioners failed to determine there was
insufficient time for further comment.

“There is no genuine issue of fact concerning what opportunity
for public comment the board afforded residents and taxpayers – the
opportunity for comment was 15 minutes out of a 38-minute meeting,”
Yoder wrote. The question, though, was whether the 15 minutes was a
“reasonable opportunity” for comment.

But the Sunshine Act does not require that every citizen who
attends the meeting get a chance to comment. In fact, it would be
almost impossible.

“In the instant case, if every one of the 40 concerned citizens
who attended the board’s special meeting was given five minutes to
speak, 200 minutes, or 3.3 hours, would have been devoted to
telling the board members what they already knew, i.e., that
everyone present was opposed to the board passing (the resolution)”
dissolving SWA, Yoder said, noting the state had addressed the
issue of citizens’ rights to speak at a public meeting before.

A proposed amendment allowing five minutes for each person to
talk was defeated by the legislature and effectively precluded “the
tyranny of the minority which might flow from the possibility of a
filibuster by concerned citizens packing a public meeting with
dozens of commentators, effectively prohibiting the public body
from acting on proposed actions,” the judge said.

Since the commissioners found there was not enough time for
further comment and provided an opportunity for further comment at
the next meeting, they were not in violation of the Sunshine Law,
Yoder said.

“Considering these circumstances, the board’s devotion of 40
percent of the meeting to public comment was reasonable even though
(Belitskus) himself was not permitted to comment,” Yoder said.
“Therefore, the court holds that allowing public comment for 15
minutes out of a 38-minute meeting is ‘reasonable.'”