DA needs to act against U.D. board

Editor:

I’m a resident and taxpayer of Upper Darby. For the last seven months, our township has been held hostage by a group of council members who have chosen to act out in meeting after meeting — like a small child who’s unhappy or stressed — because of animosity towards the chief accounting officer.

To recap, their vendetta has delayed major sewer improvements, grants to small businesses, programs to prevent gun violence, and compensation for our township workers who were forced to work during the COVID shutdown would be due additional compensation. Against the advise of their lawyer, the township’s solicitor, and their colleagues on council, they voted that the CAO had forfeited his position despite being warned that their action was in violation of the Sunshine Act.

They then went to Common Pleas Court for a declaratory judgement that their action was legal.

This week, Judge Angelos dismissed the petition for declaratory judgment on the grounds that the vote violated the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act — just like everyone tried to tell them.

But, it’s not over yet. The six who voted to dump the CAO have submitted a motion to reconsider the ruling. There haven’t been any public meetings where this was discussed and voted on.

Actions have to have consequences. The consequences for knowingly violating the Sunshine Act are a summary offence and penalties up to $1,000. (District Attorney) Jack (Stollstiemer), it’s time to hit the six with the penalties of their actions.

Their flagrant disregard for the law has to be reined in.

Their flagrant disregard for the law has to be reined in.