Alleged Sunshine Law violations lack merit, DA says

BY STACI WILSON

Susquehanna County District Attorney Jason Legg said Wednesday he won’t takeDimockTownshipsupervisors to court on a Sunshine Law violation alleged by a township resident.

Legg said the complaints lacked prosecutorial merit.

In a letter dated Jan. 11 to Julie Sautner, who filed the private criminal complaints against the supervisors, Legg addressed her claims of a Sunshine Law violation, conspiracy and official oppression.

Legg agreed that a purported, unadvertised, informal meeting onDec. 2, 2011, between the supervisors, township residents and representatives of Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, would, in fact, be in violation of the Sunshine Law.

Sautner alleged that the parties involved in the meeting discussed a proposed mutual aid agreement between Dimock andBinghamton,N.Y., for water deliveries to households who had not taken the DEP-Cabot settlement offer.

Legg then, however, explained in the letter that supervisors can “cure a Sunshine Law violation by properly addressing the matter in an open meeting.”

It was clear, the district attorney said, that the mutual aid agreement had been “vigorously debated” at theDec. 5, 2011, public meeting, rendering the alleged violations moot.

Legg also noted that there was no evidence the supervisors took action behind closed doors nor did he find that they intended to violate the Sunshine Act by holding an unlawful meeting.

In footnotes to the letter, Legg also maintained that Sautner’s complaint never alleged the Dec. 2 meeting was prearranged.

The district attorney also addressed the denial of the conspiracy and oppression complaints in the footnotes.

Legg wrote; “Apparently, the criminal conspiracy relates to the contention that members of the public and Cabot Oil conspired with the supervisors to violate the Sunshine Act.”

He said there was nothing inPennsylvanialaw that suggests members of the public can be prosecuted for violations of the Sunshine Act.

Legg wrote that the supervisors had to know their conduct was illegal to support a charge of official oppression and no evidence to that fact was provided in the complaints.

He also said the complaint did not demonstrate any connection between a violation of the Sunshine Law and the denial of a right.

“The fact that an improper meeting may have occurred does not translate into a denial of clean water,” Legg said.

Legg said a copy of the letter would also be sent to the Dimock Township supervisors in an effort to make clear the impropriety of the Dec. 2, informal meeting. He also stated that if prearranged meetings occurred in the future, a basis could then be made for the prosecution of a Sunshine Law violation.

Sautner can petition the Court of Common Pleas to review the district attorney’s decision to not prosecute the complaints.