ShareThis Page

Allegheny County Council: Follow the rules, rule-makers

| Saturday, March 18, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Allegheny County Council makes rules for others to follow — such as the indoor vaping ban it just passed — but seemingly disregards rules it's supposed to follow.

The Democrat majority apparently violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act by holding a closed-door January caucus meeting, at which a council quorum made a foregone conclusion of filling a vacancy. Solicitor Jack Cambest defended that meeting.

After the perfunctory vacancy-filling vote at the next day's regular meeting, council President John DeFazio, D-Shaler, laughingly said, “We didn't really have to do that, but I did it anyway.” Not funny.

Council apparently skirted the Sunshine Act again in February, by neither announcing nor giving a reason for a closed-door session — which included Mr. Cambest — held an hour before a regular meeting. “I think I let it slip by,” Mr. DeFazio said. That's slipshod.

And for more than two years, members often haven't complied with the council's own rule requiring written explanations for abstentions, the Trib has found. “If it's an inconsequential vote” — such as DeFazio abstaining from the vaping-ban vote — “it doesn't matter,” said Cambest, who stayed mum at a February 2015 meeting when DeFazio said abstention explanations weren't needed.

For the sake of transparency and proper procedure, and its own credibility as a lawmaking body, Allegheny County Council must stop this indefensible nonsense and play by the rules it should obey.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.