When Monessen Mayor Matt Shorraw this month attended his first meeting in roughly 20 months, resident Ronald Mozer asked him, “Why should we even pay attention to what you’re doing here today, after missing 40 meetings?”

Mozer paid plenty of attention, though, and now wants a Westmoreland County judge to set aside what Shorraw did at that meeting.

Shorraw utilized a majority of council votes to fire the city solicitor and city administrator, change the date and time of council meetings without asking other council members, appoint committee members as a single motion and adjourn the meeting without allowing public comment, along with five other administrative moves that came with no public explanation other than saying Shorraw was “moving in a new direction.”

Mozer filed a court complaint this week accusing Shorraw and councilmen Donald Gregor and Gil Coles of violating the state’s Sunshine Act, which governs public meetings by state and local government bodies.

Nearly all of the votes at the Jan. 6 meeting, advertised as a council reorganization meeting, passed 3-2. Shorraw was joined by Gregor and Coles, who along with Shorraw was also attending his first meeting in more than a year and a half.

Gregor and Coles are listed as “interested parties” in the court filing.

Mozer’s complaint accuses Shorraw of violating Pennsylvania’s Title 65, specifically three violations of Chapter 7, which lays out procedure for public meetings.

Mozer cited 10 motions which “were not on the agenda, nor was public comment allowed as required by Title 65, Section 710/710.1.”

Councilman Anthony Orzechowski said he and Councilwoman Lois Thomas were taken aback by Shorraw’s behavior at the meeting, particularly moving council meetings to a different date.

“Lois and I were never contacted or asked if we could make the time slots,” Orzechowski said in an email to the Tribune-Review. “He just demanded that they change.”

Several times at the Jan. 6 meeting, Shorraw attempted to gavel Orzechowski into silence and request roll-call council votes. Orzechowski was ignored when he pointed out that the mayor had called for questions on his motions and then largely refused to answer those questions.

“We did everything we could to keep this town running, and the mayor came in and made a sham of everything,” Orzechowski said.

Melissa Melewsky, a lawyer for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, said some of Shorraw’s actions are not addressed in the Sunshine Act.

“The Sunshine Act requires deliberation of agency business to occur at a public meeting, but that can’t happen if elected officials are not permitted to deliberate,” Melewsky said. “It sounds like a terrible situation for city residents and taxpayers, and the actions described are not in the public interest, but I can’t say they constitute a Sunshine Act violation.”

Title 65 calls for financial penalties ranging from $100 to $2,000 for “any member of any agency who participates in a meeting with the intent and purpose of violating this chapter.”

Reached for comment, Shorraw said he was not aware of the complaint. He deferred questions to city solicitor Tim Witt, who did not respond to calls for comment.

A court date has not been set.

Copyright ©2025— Trib Total Media, LLC (TribLIVE.com)