During a virtual meeting Tuesday, Luzerne County Councilman Walter Griffith and several citizens argued in-person meetings should now resume.
While acknowledging online sessions are “convenient,” Griffith said the public has a right to sit in a room with council members as they conduct business.
The county has started reopening the courthouse and Penn Place buildings amid less restrictive coronavirus protocols, and the 11-member council could find a larger meeting space to address concerns that the council meeting room is too small to allow for social distancing, he said.
“I think it’s time to move off this platform of virtual as quickly as possible so people can see government in action,” Griffith said.
In response to an earlier meeting inquiry from citizen Mark Rabo, county Assistant Solicitor Vito DeLuca said he continues to monitor guidance on public meetings during the pandemic and does not know how the meeting format will evolve “until the dust settles.”
DeLuca said he believes there will be concerns from the public and elected officials about how meetings are conducted until a coronavirus vaccine is approved and made readily available. DeLuca said he and Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo have had many discussions about how to safely resume in-person meetings over the last two months.
When additional guidance or legislation is released, DeLuca said the county law office will consider all possibilities and advise council and the manager on options to proceed.
Until then, DeLuca said he won’t speculate and has “absolutely no idea” when council and the public will be “in the same room again.”
Several regular council meeting attendees weighed in.
Jason Carr said council should ask schools for permission to meet in their larger facilities as the county did to provide temporary locations for in-person voting in the June 2 primary election.
Ron Knapp concurred, saying roomier venues would allow the public to meet with the elected officials.
Both Knapp and citizen Brian Shiner expressed dissatisfaction with issues they have encountered accessing a phone-in platform implemented for public comment during the virtual meetings.
Other action
Several other coronavirus-related topics came up during Tuesday’s meeting.
• Councilman Harry Haas questioned whether the county’s emergency declaration should continue. He complained about Gov. Tom Wolf’s handling of closures and other decisions and said he believes the county declaration continues the painting of a “false narrative.”
County Manager C. David Pedri said he has continued the declaration more recently as cases declined because he wanted to be sure the county would not miss out on any coronavirus funding assistance tied to a declaration. Pedri said after Tuesday’s meeting he does not plan to continue the county declaration past June 13.
• Pedri praised county Sheriff Brian Szumski for coordinating the county reopening plan and overseeing other assistance performed by his department during the pandemic.
A small number of courthouse visitors have been required to wait, spread out in a tent, due to limitations on the number of people permitted in offices at one time, Pedri said. The first two days of the criminal court reopening this week went well, he said.
Most of those in the tent have been awaiting hearings on an increased number of protection-from-abuse cases that have been filed since a stay-at-home order was imposed in March, Pedri said. There were a total 884 temporary PFA requests granted in March, April and May this year, or 373 more than the same three-month period last year, Szumski has said.
• Griffith said council should formally vote on budget amendments tracking coronavirus funding that will be provided to the county to cover pandemic-related expenses, including overtime for the sheriff’s department and some primary election costs. Amendments are cumbersome and require public hearings, but Griffith said it is council’s “fiduciary responsibility.”
Council Chairman Tim McGinley agreed that budget amendments are warranted.