Times-News neglects landmark First Amendment court decision in Erie federal court

The news room at the Erie Times-News has once again displayed its incompetence and egregious lack of journalistic ethics and professionalism by grossly underplaying a major story with profound First Amendment implications statewide and beyond because of petty local politics and animosity by Managing Editor Pat Howard, other top editors and reporters Kevin Flowers and Ed Pallatella towards the principal actor and local citizen hero, Dan Galena, in a law suit decided in federal district court last week.

Against all odds, bucking the local political establishment and the biased but influential monopoly daily newspaper in northwestern Pa., Galena stunningly prevailed in federal court last week after a jury trial upheld his contention that Erie County Council Chairman Leone Fiore and other council members violated the state’s open meetings, or “Sunshine” law, its own County Code and his civil rights by having him forcibly ejected from a council meeting by a sheriff’s deputy back in March of 2007 when he vocally protested the legality of council’s procedure in adopting ordinances.

The court ordered council to pay Galena $5,000 and all attorney and court costs. According to one estimate, the law suit will have cost Erie County taxpayers about $100,000 to defend.

Since the questionable procedure used for years by county council to move an ordinance from first to second reading on the same day at the same meeting is utilized by virtually every municipal legislative body in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal court verdict upholding Galena’s position is certain to have widespread repercussions throughout the state.

The procedure effectively denies the public a full hearing and opportunity to comment timely on council actions. Under law, ordinances must have two separate readings on two separate days before council can take final action adopting them. It’s a way of making sure that members of the public have ample time to consider the ramifications of proposed ordinances and comment on and favor or oppose them before council takes final action on them.

Although the Times-News carried a few sketchy stories on Galena’s law suit as it progressed through the court system, as well as minimal reporting of the jury verdict in his favor last week, the newspaper vastly underplayed the magnitude of the verdict’s implications throughout the commonwealth, and failed to give Galena due credit for perservering in the face of overwhelming odds, including callous attempts by Leone and other members of council to intimidate him brutally.

Ironically, it’s the kind of official wrongdoing involving freedom of the press and the public’s right to know which the local news media should take the lead in exposing, but failed miserably to do so. Instead The Times-News and the rest of the local news media largely ignored Galena’s public-spirited crusade against the errant council and its arrogant chairman’s attempt to hold themselves above the law, failing to give the issue the prominent coverage it deserves, or lauding him for pursuing his strongly-held convictions in court at considerable personal expense and sacrifice.

The Times-News frequently editorializes in favor of open meetings under the state’s Sunshine law, freedom of the press and public access to public information in the hands of government, but ignored this important First Amendment violation occurring right under its nose, and failing to take Galena’s lawsuit seriously because of internal hostility towards Galena for his frequent and sharp criticisim of its news and editorial coverage often expressed in his angry letters to the editor which the Times-News never publishes.

In his defense against Galena’s charges of violations of the Sunshine law and the County Code, Leone said he ordered Galena out of the courthouse during a council meeting on March 20 , 2007 because he was “disruptive” when he objected to council’s attempt to move an ordinance from first to second reading on the same day. Leone said council has set aside a public hearing period near the opening of council meeting to allow fpr public comment.

However, since council’s action on the ordinance came after the public hearing, there was no opportunity for Galena to comment on it prior to that action. Moreover, the state’s Sunshine law expressly allows anyone to raise an objection against council action at any time during a meeting if there is a perceived violation of the Sunshine law.