It's hard to work up much sympathy for Coyotes, the Milford "restaurant with benefits", which is, literally, making a federal case out of its dancers' constitutional right to bare arms - along with the rest of their bodies. Although most people really don't care what goes on between consenting adults, and adulterers, in the privacy of their home-sweet-stripclub, the entire community should be offended by the way the owners went about it.
Coyotes didn't like the current law, which bans nude dancing at BYO joints, so they merely ignored it, following their attorney's claim that other municipalities don't enforce state show-and-tell statutes. And they basically dared anyone to stop them, knowing that court action can be prolonged, and expensive for the opposition.
It's actually surprising that Coyotes even wants to fight. The whole issue will disappear if they simply comply with the law, and get a liquor license, which carries with it the right to have exotic dancing. But after months of posturing, threats, preliminary hearings, and community outrage, the two sides again appear headed for court. And the stakes are now much higher. Coyotes is challenging the state's Municipal Planning Code, which gives elected officials some discretion in considering certain areas of development. Courts will be very wary of overturning an important, long-standing law, and you can expect towns from across the state to line up behind Milford.
Community residents, who fear that there will be negative effects from Coyotes, have packed local hearings to voice their concerns. State Rep Paul Clymer even tried to intercede. Unfortunately, these well-intentioned partisan demonstrations are legally meaningless. Zoning codes do not take public opinion into consideration, and elected leaders must follow the written laws, no matter how unpopular.
All of which brings us to a very upsetting parallel. Coyotes' lurid story has grabbed the headlines, but another local, better-dressed, group, is following exactly the same scenario. And while the outcome of Coyotes' legal wrangling will actually affect only a handful of people, this other imbroglio promises to have repercussions in your home. Here is Coyotes II: the actors change, but the plot stays the same...
They didn't like the current law, so they merely ignored it... Who? Quakertown Community School District. More specifically, Superintendent Dr Lisa Andrejko, and the board's ever-secretive majority. The folks who would never allow a student to intentionally circumvent school rules, yet do exactly that, themselves, with state law.
Dr A, and certain board members, don't like Public School Law 5-508, which requires that all district contracts over $100 be made by the board through a public, recorded vote. A law that QCSD, and the other 500 districts in PA, have followed since it was enacted 59 years ago. A law that allows the public to know ahead of time how their tax dollars are being spent, and to have the opportunity to comment. But Andrejko wants to make virtually all contracts on her own, in private, with no public input. So the board majority voted to just ignore 5-508, and gave her that power. Now, those directors who oppose our wild spending, and concerned residents, can no longer object, and we won't learn about the contracts until after they are completed.
... following their attorney's claim that other municipalities don't enforce state statutes. And they basically dared anyone to stop them, knowing that court action can be prolonged, and expensive for the opposition. Andrejko, without asking the board, or even telling them what she was doing, hired Michael I. Levin as QCSD's attorney. He does not call himself the solicitor, apparently because that would subject him to the state's Ethics Law.
Although 5-508 has not been changed by the legislature, or the courts, Levin advised the board that since some other districts don't enforce it, QCSD need not either. Just like Coyotes. How? Levin, a veteran school law practitioner, has brought a new attitude to QCSD: do what you will, because education law is the wild, wild west. The PA Department of Education is staffed with ex-school administrators who shy away from ruling against their brethren. The Attorney General claims to have no jurisdiction. It is usually left to individual members of the public to bring any enforcement action, and Levin knows that no one is going to spend tens of thousands of their own dollars to challenge a school board, since directors have virtually endless amounts of your taxpayer money to defend themselves.
But there may be a White Knight riding to our rescue. PA Auditor General Jack Wagner just announced that he has asked the Bureau of School Audits to review the matter. Expect lots of district behind-the-scenes politicking.
The whole issue will disappear if they only comply with the law. Coyotes could avoid their problem by just doing what other nude-dancing establishments do - get a liquor license. QCSD could avoid their problem by just doing what they, and systems across the state, always have done - follow 5-508. Make contracts by a public, recorded vote of the directors. Allow community input. Let the residents see what is happening. No more secrets.
Why the big deal about Andrejko making the contracts (aside from actually following the law)? Because, as the district's own documents (which, not surprisingly, have been kept from the public) show, her budgeting has been so horrendous that QCSD is dramatically overspending its income almost every year, and is on the verge of using up its savings. It is beyond the comprehension of anyone (except our board's majority, which can now avoid embarrassing public votes) to allow Andrejko to have total authority to secretly make millions of dollars worth of contracts. The fox will own the henhouse, while you pay the rent. We need more oversight and community openness, not less.
Coyotes is unpopular, but at least they don't pretend to be anything other than what they are. QCSD behaves exactly the same, but believes themselves above reproach, and sinless. Neither seems to care what the public thinks. But if we criticize one, how can we not do the same with the other?