In a lengthy news release, the Friends of White’s Woods says it has filed an amended complaint against the White Township supervisors in Indiana County Court.
The complaint filed Wednesday claims the supervisors failed to obtain proper telephonic bids for invasive species removal and failed as well to obtain requests for proposals for a consulting forester. Further, the group contends that the decision to hire Millstone Land Management to remove the invasive species was made improperly in executive session, which it says is a violation of the state’s Sunshine Act.
The complaint filed by legal counsel Tim Fitchett of Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services of Pittsburgh continues to ask the court to make a declaratory judgment against the supervisors and now seeks the vacating of all township decisions made in executive sessions, including the voiding of the invasive species contract with Millstone, and the hiring of Millstone as the township’s forestry consultant.
Friends of White’s Woods alleges in its lawsuit that the township’s plans for the woodlot include the demolition of sixty-year-old walking, hiking, and biking trails; earth-moving and tree removal to build new trails; marking hundreds of trees with paint for timbering and removing those trees; constructing new roads and timbering skid-trails; and destroying the forest floor.
HERE IS THE RELEASE BY FRIENDS OF WHITE’S WOODS
FRIENDS OF WHITE’S WOODS FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT AGAINST WHITE TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Friends of White’s Woods amended their May complaint in the Indiana County Court of Common Pleas Wednesday against the White Township Board of Supervisors to include failure to obtain proper telephonic bids for invasive species removal and failure to obtain requests for proposals for a consulting forester.
Filed through their legal counsel Tim Fitchett of Fair Shake Environmental Legal Services of Pittsburgh, FWW’s amended complaint still seeks a declaratory judgment and now claims violations of the Commonwealth Procurement Code as well as the violations of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act and the Municipal Planning Code.
In January, White Township manager Milt Lady drafted a memo on bids for the treatment of invasive species at the White Township Rec Center. The memo included three quotations: Millstone, WGM Excavation and Timothy Botsford listed in the Millstone brochure as surveyor/owner. Bids from WGM Excavation and Botsford were rejected for failure to complete the necessary paperwork, among other reasons. The same three bidders were considered by Lady in April for removal of invasive species in White’s Woods. According to notations made by Lady on the January memo, WGM Excavation and Botsford were rejected for the same reasons as in January.
In executive session at the Sept. 19th supervisors meeting, the supervisors approved a consulting agreement with Millstone Land Management LLC for “management of invasive plant species and timber on all White Township-owned properties.” According to the Commonwealth Procurement Code for design and professional services, such contracts require a request for proposals from qualified professionals.
According to an interview in The HawkEye with David J. Babyak, 71, author of the 2008 White’s Woods Stewardship Plan, requests for proposals were never solicited. Babyak said he would have known about the RFPs as he was president of the Southwest Pennsylvania chapter of the Society of American Foresters and knows just about every forester in the region.
The suit now seeks the vacating of all township decisions made in executive sessions and declaring that the contract for invasive species plant eradication between the township and Millstone Land Management, LLC, of Marion Center is void as is the forestry consulting contract with Millstone’s president.
According to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, there are limited exceptions to open meetings. According to Fitchett, the White Township supervisors’ executive sessions on White’s Woods did not meet those exceptions. In addition, the Sunshine Act requires that the reason for the Executive Session must be presented at the open meeting. This, also, was not done.
The Pennsylvania Sunshine Act requires agencies to deliberate and take official action on agency business in an open and public meeting. The act also requires that meeting times and places are advertised and that the public can attend, participate, and comment before an agency takes official action.
In addition to citizens’ right to know what is happening in their local communities, journalists depend on the Sunshine Act to accurately report what is happening. If key decisions are made out of the public’s – and journalists’ – eyes, the reasons behind those decisions are obscured.
According to Dr. David Loomis, IUP journalism professor emeritus and editor of The HawkEye: “Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law is an important tool for journalists seeking public information from public officials about public actions on matters of public interest. But the state statute – and its companion Right to Know Law — are equally important for citizens, who file the most requests under the laws’ provisions.
“Freedom-of-information laws are more important during crises, when public trust is a priority. The laws and the Covid-19 crisis present challenges to public officials. But transparency prioritizes trust. And experts on the statutes say that with the exception of remote technology, provisions are unchanged — public meetings remain public, including public participation and public records.”
The original suit also alleges that the supervisors avoided advertising for bids for the removal of the invasive species by dividing the White’s Woods plan into seven stages, thus allowing each separate stage to stay under the Municipal Planning Code maximum ($21,000) that mandates advertising. According to the code, a township may not evade the advertising requirements “by purchasing or contracting for services and personal properties piecemeal to obtain prices under the required advertising price.”
While “saving the woods” is a paramount consideration of FWW, the group has become increasingly concerned about the lack of transparency at supervisors’ meetings. “We were told that if we just attended the meetings,” FWW President Sara King said, “we would know everything that is going on in the township. But, if decisions are made behind closed doors, if standard municipal procedures are not followed, if the bid process appears sketchy (and we only know that through Right to Know requests), then one begins to question just how transparent they are.”
One area resident, Sierra Davis, 25, 525 Edgewood Ave., has inquired at two recent supervisors’ meetings about the posting of minutes on the township’s website to increase transparency but has received only an indication that this effort is pending and not of high priority for the supervisors. Davis noted that Indiana Borough posts all agendas, minutes and recordings of meetings on their website making it easy for citizens to keep informed, particularly through the COVID-19 crisis.
White’s Woods is the only White Township wooded area that was purchased with Project 70 funds, which regulates the usage of the woods, and states that the lands must be utilized for recreation, conservation, and historical purposes, and contribute to meet the recreation or conservation needs of the community.
The suit alleges that the plans include extensive surface operations including demolishing 60-year-old walking, hiking and biking trails throughout the park; earth moving and tree cutting removal to construct new trails; defacing hundreds of trees with colored paint to mark for timbering; constructing roads and timbering skid-trails; timbering and removing hundreds of trees to open the forest canopy; and removing and destroying the 60-year-old forest floor.
For more information on this suit and on the stewardship plan for White’s Woods, go to friendsofwhiteswoods.org.
Comments