Greensburg Council retroactively OKs firing of planning director |

Greensburg Council retroactively OKs firing of planning director

Deb Erdley
Barb Ciampini

Greensburg Council Monday unanimously ratified its decision last month to fire longtime Planning Director Barbara Ciampini.

Though Mayor Robert Bell and city Solicitor Bernard McArdle declined to comment on the retroactive vote, it was seen as a “cure” for what could be a violation of the state’s Sunshine Act, since an initial vote to terminate Ciampini occurred at an unadvertised meeting.

Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act requires government agencies to “deliberate and take official action on agency business” at advertised meetings that are open to the public. Unscheduled, impromptu discussions and decisions are not exempt, according to the law.

Bell has said city council voted unanimously to terminate Ciampini on Feb. 18, after an informal meeting that occurred when the mayor and all four council members got together after an unrelated recreation board meeting.

Bell announced council’s decision the following day, and the city promptly began advertising for a replacement for Ciampini. Last week, however, city officials placed a vote on the planning director’s termination on the agenda for Monday’s meeting.

Ciampini, who was paid $73,500 a year, had been a fixture in city government for 35 years. Bell and members of council have declined to say what triggered her seemingly abrupt termination.

Monday’s vote cited Feb. 19 as the effective date of Ciampini’s firing.

An attempt to reach Ciampini Monday for comment was unsuccessful. She previously told the Tribune-Review she had no comment.

Until a new planning director is hired, Bell said he and city administrator Kelsye Milliron are overseeing matters that come before the planning department, with Bell focusing on code issues.

Lou Sabbers, a city resident and local contractor, expressed support for council, indicating proposed development projects in Greensburg that had been planned for some time are now moving forward.

“Something’s different,” he said. “To go in new ways, you have to cut old ties.”

Melissa Melewsky, a media lawyer for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said government bodies are permitted to discuss personnel matters behind closed doors.

“But, the actual firing or hiring has to take place at a public meeting. They can only take official action at a public meeting. I think what they’re trying to do here is to effect a cure. The court has said, if you realize you did something the wrong way, you can cure it by doing it the right way,” Melewsky said.

She said, if that’s the case, “it should be accompanied by an admission of wrongdoing and a pledge to do better in the future. That usually doesn’t happen, but it should,” she said.

Greensburg’s move to ratify the earlier vote takes place as news organizations across the country mark the beginning of Sunshine Week, which includes a national campaign that emphasizes the importance of open government and the dangers of government secrecy.

Bradford Simpson, president of the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said the campaign endeavors to educate the public about citizens’ rights under Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act and the Right to Know Law.

“These laws codify open government concepts that predate this nation and recognize the fact that government functions best when citizens are fully informed and actively involved in government decisions,” Simpson wrote in an editorial Monday.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Westmoreland
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.