Sunday, January 26, 2025
Friday, January 24, 2025
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
[LNP | LancasterOnline] Lawyers say Columbia council in compliance with Sunshine Act, after resident questions meeting
.png)
GAYLE JOHNSON | FOR LNP | LANCASTERONLINE
When: Columbia Borough Council meeting, Jan. 14.
What happened: A borough resident used the public comment portion of the meeting to accuse council members of violating the Sunshine Act by meeting behind a locked door in private — a matter disputed by the borough's attorney and by a lawyer who specializes in Sunshine Act violations.
Details: Frank Doutrich said he returned to council chambers after the Jan. 7 meeting to retrieve his cell phone, but found the door locked while a quorum of council members remained in the meeting room to sign checks.
Quotables: "That's not a violation of the Sunshine Act," borough solicitor Evan Gabel said after Doutrich spoke. Melissa Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, later agreed. "The law only applies when there's a quorum — and that quorum is deciding agency business," she said Jan. 20. Administrative work would not be considered as deliberating a business matter, she said.
Quotable: "I can't recall any time we've ever talked about a subject" after a meeting that would fall under council business, Eric Kauffman, vice president, said.
Locked door: Borough employees who leave the building after the meeting lock the door on their way out, because the door had been left unlocked several times, Mayor Leo Lutz said. Police officers have contacted him about the problem, he explained.
Wrong message: While not a Sunshine Act violation, having council members together behind a locked door may send the wrong message, Melewsky and Kauffman indicated.
Quotables: "It creates the appearance of impropriety and not necessarily a violation of the law," Melewsky said. During the meeting, Kauffman said, "I do agree with Frank," that the situation could raise concerns.
Change: The door now will be left unlocked while council members remain in Borough Hall, and anyone can stay after the meeting, Zink said Jan. 20.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/regional/lawyers-say-columbia-council-in-compliance-with-sunshine-act-after-resident-questions-meeting/article_64929cfc-d80f-11ef-b8ae-f75be23501fd.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
When: Columbia Borough Council meeting, Jan. 14.
What happened: A borough resident used the public comment portion of the meeting to accuse council members of violating the Sunshine Act by meeting behind a locked door in private — a matter disputed by the borough's attorney and by a lawyer who specializes in Sunshine Act violations.
Details: Frank Doutrich said he returned to council chambers after the Jan. 7 meeting to retrieve his cell phone, but found the door locked while a quorum of council members remained in the meeting room to sign checks.
Quotables: "That's not a violation of the Sunshine Act," borough solicitor Evan Gabel said after Doutrich spoke. Melissa Melewsky, an attorney with the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, later agreed. "The law only applies when there's a quorum — and that quorum is deciding agency business," she said Jan. 20. Administrative work would not be considered as deliberating a business matter, she said.
Quotable: "I can't recall any time we've ever talked about a subject" after a meeting that would fall under council business, Eric Kauffman, vice president, said.
Locked door: Borough employees who leave the building after the meeting lock the door on their way out, because the door had been left unlocked several times, Mayor Leo Lutz said. Police officers have contacted him about the problem, he explained.
Wrong message: While not a Sunshine Act violation, having council members together behind a locked door may send the wrong message, Melewsky and Kauffman indicated.
Quotables: "It creates the appearance of impropriety and not necessarily a violation of the law," Melewsky said. During the meeting, Kauffman said, "I do agree with Frank," that the situation could raise concerns.
Change: The door now will be left unlocked while council members remain in Borough Hall, and anyone can stay after the meeting, Zink said Jan. 20.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/regional/lawyers-say-columbia-council-in-compliance-with-sunshine-act-after-resident-questions-meeting/article_64929cfc-d80f-11ef-b8ae-f75be23501fd.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Columbia police charge man with child endangerment, indecent assault, corruption of minors
Antonio Manuel Cueto
Columbia Borough police on Jan. 3 charged Antonio Manuel Cueto, 46, with endangering the welfare of children, three counts of indecent assault and three counts of corruption of minors.
Police say Cueto called them to his home and turned himself in, admitting to molesting and masturbating in front of a minor multiple times in December, according to charging documents.
Cueto is in Lancaster County Prison in lieu of $75,000 bail. He does not have an attorney listed on his docket, and his next hearing has not been scheduled yet.
MORE HERE
Deeds Recorded - Columbia Borough - January 21, 2025
.png)
Wolanski Thola Ab conveyed 27 S. Sixth St. to Cole Mykel B, Cole Soraya M. for $290,000.
The estate of Smith James A, Smith Thomas L. conveyed property on Washington Street to Smith Sarah J, Smith Emily E. for $1.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)