The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/gas-dri...e#axzz1iPhnQNdN

A Dimock Township couple has filed a series of private criminal complaints against the supervisors, saying the elected leaders held a secret meeting last month.

The Susquehanna County District Attorney says he has received the complaints and is now in the process of reviewing them to determine if they have merit.

http://pahomepage.com/fulltext/?nxd_id=219626

Supervisor Paul Jennings told us Tuesday night, there was never a secret meeting.

http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/gas-dri...e#axzz1iPhnQNdN

Board Chairman Matthew Neenan said he could not comment in depth on Mrs. Sautner's complaint because the supervisors had not been served official papers. He did say he believes the supervisors did nothing wrong during the Dec. 2 meeting with some residents who came looking for information.

"We voted on nothing," Mr. Neenan said of the meeting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
It concerns some resident's of Dimock, who don't want to foot any legal bills. "My husband makes 14 dollars an hour and I raise three kids on that and I have to raise my taxes to pay for your crap," said one unidentified woman.

........

DIMOCK TWP. - Deep divisions among neighbors over the impact of Marcellus Shale drilling on this Susquehanna County community erupted Tuesday night
...................

Cabot has denied that it caused the methane contamination, which it says occurs naturally in 80 percent of the water wells it has tested throughout Susquehanna County.
............................



seems like the nieghbors dont agree, and as i recall a lot of them say the gas was in the wells in that area before cabot was there.doesnt look to good when there own nieghbors dont believe them about there wells?
cabot says 80% of the wells they test in that county have methane in them pre drilling? i would think that would be a good place for EPA/DEP to follow that up. might shed some light on whats truely going on in dimock ?

far as the supervisors, as a twp supervisor myself, i think they did the right thing not taking water from bing. i dont the the twp should get involved with that, just as there soliciter pointed out.
in my opinion the whole water from bing was nothing more than a dog and pony show from the anti's anyway, which is even better reason for the twp to steer clear of it.

while i cant say the supervisors did or didnt do anything wrong, because i was not there, i will say that supervisors can be in the same place at the same time and listen to peoples complaints,comments, thoughts etc, they just cant make decisions about twp business.
it doesnt sound like they did anything wrong, they seem confident they didnt and they no the laws, sis i believe they will be cleared......time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
buzz said:
while i cant say the supervisors did or didnt do anything wrong, because i was not there, i will say that supervisors can be in the same place at the same time and listen to peoples complaints,comments, thoughts etc, they just cant make decisions about twp business.
it doesnt sound like they did anything wrong, they seem confident they didnt and they no the laws, sis i believe they will be cleared......time will tell.
I think it all comes down to whether or not they held a "meeting". Ones says no, the other says they did. If it was a "meeting", shouldn't there have been public notice given ahead of time?

Personally, I don't think the whole story is out yet. Just seems odd that 20 or 30 people show up with no public notice given. I agree.. time will tell, although at this point.. I dont' think it looks very good for the supervisors as they have stated they did indeed discuss the proposed mutual aid agreement.

"Any time a quorum or more discusses agency business, it must do so at a public meeting unless an exception applies," Melewsky said. "And I'm not aware of an exception that applies to allow this type of discussion."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/article/...ion-water-offer
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
fine line with that. i'll give you a example. we meet with pen dot to set up agility program, 2 and sometimes all 3 supervisors are there. we ask questions, listen,learn what we can do. then at our monthly meeting, we first give a discloser stating we met with pendot, time/date and names, then we discuss what we learned, make a decision and go forward.

ok to have a meeting like that, just a fine line with what you do and say while your there. i thik it's fine for all of them to attend the same meeting, long as they didnt call the meeting without public notice, or debate/decide on twp business.

you have to give enough room with that law to allow the normal function of business.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
***ok to have a meeting like that, just a fine line with what you do and say while your there. i thik it's fine for all of them to attend the same meeting, long as they didnt call the meeting without public notice****

There was no public notice given for the meeting on the December 2nd.

***or debate/decide on twp business.***

According to the Supervisors, they did discuss twp business (the proposed mutual aid agreement with Bing).

***you have to give enough room with that law to allow the normal function of business.***

The act itself, contains plenty of exemptions for allowing normal routine of business. If it is lacking in some way, it should be amended. The law is the law, it's there for a reason, trying to find wiggle room around it seems fishy to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
if the supervisors didnt call/orginize the meeting, they dont have to give notice.

you can discuss,as in learning facts.

i agree that the law is there for a reason. i'm not sure if they are wiggling around it cause i wasnt there and there is not enough printed to fully understand how it all went down.


keep us posted on the outcome of this. lot of gray area involved , i'm sure the investigation will get to the bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Agreed, should be interesting to see how this progresses.
Right now I'm calling a meeting with Sam Adams to watch the Steelers game!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Went about how I expected it. The Beer was cold, Denver was Hot.
One of my best friends is a diehard Packers fan, I prefer the Steelers. Last year the bet for the Superbowl was loser had to display a piece of the other teams memorabilia in the living room for a year. Darn tired of that GB #1 Fan license plate LOL, but a bets a bet and it's almost paid up
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
http://www.pressconnects.com/article/201...dyssey=nav|head

DIMOCK, Pa. -- An unannounced gathering of all three Dimock Township supervisors last month "arguably" constituted a violation of Pennsylvania's open meetings laws, according to a decision issued Wednesday by Susquehanna County District Attorney Jason Legg.

"If the media reports are accurate, it appears that there was some informal gathering of the Dimock Township Supervisors where township business was discussed ..." Legg wrote in a four-page decision. "If true, this would arguably constitute a violation of the Sunshine Act."

In his decision this week, Legg admonished the Dimock officials for procedural "impropriety."

However, he said the district attorney's office wouldn't pursue the matter further.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
the subsequent public meeting on the mutual aid agreement renders any alleged Sunshine Act violations moot," Legg wrote


pretty much what i was saying, they discussed and voted on it at the scheduled meeting, they attended the earlier meeting and learned facts, ask questions....no harm/no foul....that is a legit operating procedure.the appeal will go no where.


thanks for the update
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
by that theory a criminal can rob a gas station in susquehanna county and be fine as long as he returns the money 3 days later.

But actually what the article states is that what they did was wrong, however the DA's office is choosing not to prosecute.

quote:"If the media reports are accurate, it appears that there was some informal gathering of the Dimock Township Supervisors where township business was discussed ..." Legg wrote in a four-page decision. "If true, this would arguably constitute a VIOLATION of the Sunshine Act."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
"If true, this would arguably constitute a VIOLATION


if they truely broke the law , why didnt the DA file charges? what they actualy did was argueably wrong.

lets face it, this isn't about the supervisors doing somthing illegal, or they would have been charged. this is about the supervisors not being on the same side as the people on carter road who are sueing Cabot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
369 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Legg's Letter is here:
http://www.pressconnects.com/assets/pdf/CB183811112.PDF

The mere fact that no formal vote or decision was made by the supervisors would not alter the unlawful deliberations that occurred in violation of the Sunshine Act.

Legg also states the fine is not to exceed $100 which I find interesting because the Sunshine Act was amended on June 30th 2011 and states the fine is not to excede $1000. I'm not sure if he is up to date on the current act but there is no provision in it for holding a public meeting after the fact making the 'secret' meeting moot.

http://www.pafoic.org/sunshine_assets/PaFOICSunshineAct.pdf

I'm sure this one is not over yet. I'll let you know if i hear any further info.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,132 Posts
i think the DA's letter explains it quit well.

these same supervisors probly held meetings with road const comps, equipment comps etc, a half dozen times last year and no one cared.........all the same normal business pratice. i am a twp supervisor, and myself and another supervisor met with a bridge contractor just last week....this stuff happens all the time, it has to, to get anything done .

the only reason this is a issue is because they dont agree with the sauters and the group of antis who are trying to keep dimick in the press.

it may not be over, but my money says nothing will become of it other than more press for the anti crowd

thanks again for update, if ya hear anything new let us know.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top