The legal battle between Stevens and supervisors colleagues over the right to view records continues
By P.J. D’Annunzio, Staff Writer, KennettTimes.com
Stevens claimed that his right to view financial documents as a supervisor is being suppressed by the Township.
KENNETT — During Monday night’s Board of Supervisor’s meeting, old issues stemming from the release of the 2009-2010 audits and the financial documents linked to them were brought back into the public light.
Midway through the meeting, Supervisor Scudder Stevens made a motion to amend a policy that prevents supervisors from viewing human resources data including information relating to employee benefits and compensation.
“In December of 2011 the then Board of Supervisors amended the Records Security Policy by providing that not even members of the then Board of Supervisors are permitted to access personal information/human resources,” he said. “I believe this extraordinary step was taken solely to preclude my access to township records.”
Stevens claimed that the matter is scheduled for trial in Mid-May of 2012 and has thus far cost the Township roughly $100,000 in legal fees. Stevens attested that as a supervisor he has the right to view all financial documents — including those containing employee information such as Social Security numbers — stating that he “as a duly elected supervisor has the right and duty to oversee the financial activities of [Kennett] Township.”
The motion to amend the policy was voted down, not seconded by the other two supervisors. As it stands, Lisa Moore — the Township’s Manager, Secretary, and Treasurer — is the only individual with the ability to view financial documents containing employee information in their entirety.
“All the supervisors have access, the problem is per the Civil Rights law,” she said. “I cannot give out the personal identifying information of our employees to anybody.”
Several questions arose from various township citizens, the most commonly asked: if the township supervisors act as employers to township employees, why are they unable to access the documents in question, even if the sensitive information is redacted?
Moore suggested that the township consult a Right to Know specialist stating “I’m not an attorney; I’m just following the law. How about we get our township attorney to explain it?”
“I’m not looking to find out somebody’s personal information,” Stevens said, “I want to see what’s going on financially. This township has been through tremendous difficulty in the past six months and we now are getting three audits done to make sure that things are done correctly. Why? Because the supervisors have not looked at this stuff in a proper fashion…that’s my responsibility, and if something turns out wrong on my watch, I’m personally liable. If I’m personally liable, why can’t I see it?”
Chairman Michael Elling responded to Stevens' allegations, claiming that supervisors can already view pertinent records
“Let me make this clear,” Chairman Michael Elling stated to the attendees, “If Lisa had acquiesced to Scudder’s request for that information she would have been doing an illegal act and she could have easily been fired.”
Supervisor Bob Hammaker stated that prior to the December 2011 amendment, the Records Policy was operated in the same fashion, with the amendment acting only in a clarifying capacity. “The solicitor reviewed our policy and said there was nothing wrong with it,” he said.
“This has absolutely nothing to do with Lisa Moore,” Stevens said referring to the ongoing legal battle and the township’s alleged unwillingness to settle outside of court. “My motion was very specific. It’s the other two supervisors that are controlling this…I was told that the Board didn’t want to go there [settlement]. That means that the board is getting ready for a day and a half trial in common pleas, even though I said ‘change the language here and I’ll back away.’ ”
Again, Elling responded to Stevens and the public comments stating, “We three supervisors have unfettered access to financial records and personnel records.”
By the end of the meeting, the board — with concentrated input from the public throughout the night — informally agreed to consult a Right to Know specialist to expedite the closure of the dispute.
NOTE: The second edition of coverage concerning Monday night’s Board of Supervisors meeting — specifically the internal dispute surrounding a proposed conservation easement — will appear in an additional article shortly.
