Click here to subscribe today or Login.
A proposal targeting Luzerne County Council phone attendance at public meetings is prompting heated debate.
The council bylaws committee wants to require council members to state a reason when they are requesting the council chair’s permission to attend by phone.
A new requirement also would be added mandating council approval if a member wants to attend by phone after three consecutive phone attendances in a calendar year. The council member requesting phone attendance could not participate in that vote, the proposed changes say.
The suggested changes were partially sparked by a January meeting, when five of the 11 council members attempted to participate by phone. That meeting prompted public criticism, with one citizen predicting a scenario in which only one or two council members would be physically present, said Councilman Eugene Kelleher, who served on the bylaws committee with colleagues Tim McGinley and Rick Williams.
“I think we’re elected to be here. If we can’t be here, we should explain why we can’t be here. That’s all,” Kelleher said during Tuesday’s council work session, stressing an illness would be an example of something warranting phone participation.
Councilman Harry Haas concurred with Kelleher, maintaining council members are elected to attend in person and “have a conscientious debate.”
“We need to come here to face the music when we get stones thrown at us. That’s what our job is as elected officials,” Haas said.
Councilwoman Kathy Dobash criticized the proposed changes.
“I know this is directed at me, and I’m not going to give reasons. It’s none of your business. How’s that?” Dobash said.
Dobash attended 10 of last year’s 25 regular voting meetings by phone, or 40 percent. This year to date, she attended nine meetings in person and five by phone.
She has said she relied more on remote attendance due to her demanding work schedule, illnesses or situations when she’s concerned about traveling to Wilkes-Barre from her Hazleton residence in bad weather. Limitations on phone attendance may discourage others from running for council, she said.
“I’d rather see someone call in and participate than not call in at all because you are not absent, you are still available,” Dobash said. “County council has enough restrictions on it. This is a part-time position.”
Councilwoman Jane Walsh Waitkus said she wouldn’t stop a council member from attending by phone.
“I can’t imagine missing three meetings, but who knows what’s around the corner for any of us? I’d rather they participate by phone than not participating at all,” Walsh Waitkus said.
Phone attendance restrictions should not be added, agreed Councilwoman Eileen Sorokas.
“We only make $8,000 a year. I could see if we’re making $80,000 a year,” Sorokas said.
Councilman Stephen A. Urban said council members who can’t make it in person would be forced to miss meetings because there is no penalty for absenteeism.
“The key is don’t show up,” he said.
Among the other changes proposed by the committee:
• Council members will be declared absent rather than tardy if they miss the first agenda discussion item following public comment and have not notified the chair they would be late before the meeting.
• Any council member can raise a motion to reprimand a council member for the alleged violation of meeting decorum rules.
• A council majority can vote to select a new council chair or vice chair at any time.
• Any council members who violate confidentiality of closed-door executive sessions may be subject to personal, financial or other legal repercussions.