With Dave Woglom soon-to-be-history, borough council must turn it's attention to solicitor Chuck Fonzone. In his own way, he is as responsible as Woglom for the kind of government-in-secret that has put Quakertown on the map.
The Pennsylvania Right to Know Law is designed to allow ordinary citizens, and ordinary newspaper columnists, easy access to municipal documents. Most towns, and state agencies, are very cooperative. But not Qtown. Almost all of the illegal and improper activities I have revealed in this column over the past three years have come directly from the borough's own files. Often not easily. They are routinely censored by Woglom and Fonzone.
Taxpayers have been hit with a double whammy: the borough wastes their money, and then wastes it again creating legal strategies to hide the original sins. Fonzone's bills totaled almost $36,000 last year. And $33,000 for the first eight months of 2006. $1250 per month for attending public meetings, where the press and councilmen have repeatedly observed him apparently asleep! Over $7000 this year has gone to reviewing requested documents. And a good portion of that was actually spent trying to keep the information from you.
When I was collecting evidence of lawsuits against the borough, Fonzone billed the taxpayers for his research to claim that the request was not "sufficiently specific" or did not "constitute public records under the Right-to-Know Law". There was more research to avoid providing "complaints in litigation", or even explanations of his own bills! And more research to avoid explaining the huge outside legal bills for fighting the union.
Even when documents were provided, they were chock full of "redactions" - blacked-out sentences and descriptions. Sometimes entire pages. Sometimes even the subject of the bill itself, which violates the law according to the General Counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association. Only certain redactions are permitted, but are never required. Since the borough will not allow anyone to see the originals, there is just no way to determine whether the material should be hidden from you. And their record of openness and honesty is abysmal.
One of the bills I requested, for legal work on the Operating Engineers hearings, was inadvertently sent to me twice - with different redactions on each! The words "Operating Engineers" were blacked out on one, along with phrases like "telephone conference", "legal research", and "employees list". Important secrets, wouldn't you say? But your tax money paid for the research, and the redactions. You paid to keep the information from you!
Council, Woglom, and Fonzone have taken a law that is intended as the taxpayer's weapon to open up government to public scrutiny, and are using it as their shield to hide those very shenanigans. When I requested documents on borough lawsuits, Fonzone wrote on March 1, "Response to these requests will be made on or before April 2 because these documents require a legal review".
The law says they get only five days, so on March 2, I replied, "If this information is not provided in a far more timely manner, I will take the matter of your unnecessary delay, and all of your prior improper advisories to borough council, to the PA Supreme Court Disciplinary Board".
Fonzone gave in, but only long enough to raise another roadblock. On March 14 he wrote, "The Borough has no obligation to comply with this request because the request fails to identify or describe the record sought". And you paid for this stonewalling. How much? Don't know. The bills are just large blacked-out rectangles. Your Right to Know has been redacted.
Consider the lawsuit brought against the borough by Richard Harlow, who was hired to renovate the train station. Council hid that suit for six months, and only announced it in a public meeting when I discovered it through - of course - a Right to Know request. Even Fonzone's legal bills refer to it as a "Restoration Project" rather than a lawsuit. $3000 in fees so far this year - and for what? There is no way to tell. Redacted, of course.
Consider the second reorganization meeting council was forced to hold in January because Fonzone's office allowed them to conduct illegal secret ballots at the first one. You were billed for his research to find out about a key 1999 law that had somehow escaped his notice for seven years!!! And in April there was more research for something called "Sunshine Act - 2006 Vote". What's that about? Don't know. Three more bills in June and July have virtually every word obliterated. Big Black Redactions.
And consider this June 8 email discussion of the state law requiring the borough to respond to all requests within five business days. Fonzone wrote:
"Dear Mr. Woldow, I agree that the receipt of a request if properly served is day 1 but not the first day of the five day statutory period for response. Moreover the fact that you stated in an e-mail you believed the first day of a statutory period was such and such, like positions you take in your columns, does not make it so. Finally, the time I am taking to teach you the law is not being charged to the Borough". (But in fact it was charged on his July 1 statement).
My response: "Ah, the double-talk that I have come to love from borough representatives. Receipt is 'day 1', but not the 'first day of the five-day statutory period for response'. If it is not the first day of the statutory period, what exactly is it 'day 1' of?" (He has never responded.)
"And thank you for the free education. If it is anything like the advice you and your firm gave to the borough regarding purchases from council members and their businesses, or secret ballots in council meetings, or the need for public bidding before handing out contracts, the advice is worth what you are charging me."