PITTSBURGH – A Clairton municipal service provider and two borough citizens are seeking a redoing of a council vote on an ordinance which paved the way for the City of Clairton to acquire the sewer system.
Clairton Municipal Authority, James Cerqua and Doug Ozvath filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on Nov. 16 versus The City of Clairton. All parties are based in Clairton.
“On Nov. 10, 2020, the City of Clairton, by and through its council and mayor, placed as new business on the meeting’s agenda the consideration of a motion approving Ordinance No. 1957,” the suit says.
“In particular part, the agenda stated: Consider a motion approving Ordinance No. 1957, requiring the Clairton Municipal Authority to convey the sewer system and all property and assets of the Authority to the City under provisions of Section 5619 and Section 5622 of the Municipal Authorities Act.”
The agenda also sought to establish a conveyance date by which the Authority would transfer the sewer system, all of its property and assets, assumption of all of the Authority’s financial obligations and non-financial obligations and the notification of the Authority and all other parties to immediately cease and desist from all actions or activities that could decrease the value of the sewer system – plus, the appointment of RBC Capital as Sell-Side Advisor.
“Prior to calling the meeting to order, the defendant offered tickets whereby only 16 individuals from the public could attend, live, in present, to voice any comment or opinion to these two new business items. Individuals that were not able to secure a ticket were given the option to participate in the meeting via conference call whereby they would have to pay a monetary charge per minute giving them access into the meeting,” per the suit.
“The meeting progressed, including having individuals, including, plaintiff, Doug Ozvath participate via the conference call line. During the proceedings, multiple attendees on the conference call noted the fact that they were unable to hear any of the deliberations and/or discussions due to inadequate and poor audio quality. Despite the repeated objections and in bringing the poor audio quality and inability to hear the discussions at the meeting, defendant, through its council and mayor, proceeded to vote on these two items of new business, thereby in violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a judgment and injunctive relief declaring that the Nov. 10, 2020 council meeting was in direct violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act, and as a result holding that the enactment of Ordinance 1057 and appointment of RBC Capital as Sell-Side Advisor is invalid, the enjoinment of the City from enforcing the ordinance, plus any other further relief that this Court deems necessary and appropriate.
The plaintiffs are represented by Gary J. Matta of Dodaro Matta & Cambest, in Canonsburg.
The defendant has not yet secured legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-011761
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com