In light of the press release posted on Ambler Borough’s social media page last evening (it is published in full below), we would like to respond accordingly.

With the demise of the local newspaper, local governments have gotten comfortable doing things without much scrutiny. It is our role as a local media outlet to inform the public on what their local governments are doing.

In this specific case, we saw a question posted on an Ambler Facebook community page that caught our attention.  Instead of drawing conclusions, we provided Ambler’s Borough Council collectively an opportunity to answer the allegation.

 What came back wasn’t what we expected and you can read the article on the topic here. 

As a hyper-local news platform we have the responsibility to seek the truth of what is happening in the communities we cover. We intend to perform this vital role in Ambler and we will continue to do that with the greatest integrity. In that vain, we are determined to promote a culture of local government to be even more open with the communities they serve. 

Ambler Borough Council’s press release:

The members of Ambler Borough Council issue this press release in response to an article published on November 13, 2018 by Kevin Tierney on the Around Ambler website. The article poses the question whether Council violated the Sunshine Act in what the article calls “discussions on hiring a consultant”. This is a reference to hiring a consultant to assist in the transition of Robert Hoffman from Sergeant to Chief of Police. Mr. Hoffman’s promotion was formalized in a publicly advertised Council meeting on November 7th.

We appreciate the fact that the title of the article is posed as a question (“Oops: Do Ambler’s Borough Council Discussions on Hiring a Consultant Violate the Sunshine Act?”) rather than as an allegation, but the article itself is much closer to the latter. For that reason, clarification is provided here.

Earlier this year, Council voted publicly to hire a consultant, Dave Woglom, to assist Council in the search for a new police chief. Mr. Woglom personally interviewed the candidates; he then assembled a panel of respected police chiefs in the County to interview the candidates and make a hiring recommendation. That panel not only recommended our newly hired chief, but it also recommended the hiring of an experienced police chief as a consultant to observe the department from within for a limited time and offer advice to assure a smooth transition.

A majority of Council members met with Mr. Woglom one evening to review the terms of the proposed offer to Chief Hoffman. These terms included the provision about working with a consultant. At that same meeting, Council members in attendance were introduced to the prospective consultant. The objective of this was to discuss how a relationship between the consultant and Chief Hoffman might work, as well as the Borough’s relationship with Chief Hoffman—all matters properly discussed in executive session. As the Sunshine Laws say, Council is permitted to include in an executive session such persons as are necessary to carry out the meeting’s purpose. The article states that the meeting was simply about whether to hire a consultant when in reality it was a discussion about how to implement the new Chief’s contract. Therefore, the article’s reliance on the statement that discussions about a consultant may not be had in executive session misses the essential point of the meeting.

Let us be very clear about one thing: no vote was taken during the above-described meeting on whether to hire a consultant. We asked ourselves if those Council members present at the meeting would be comfortable with continued discussion and/or voting on a consultant at an upcoming public meeting, dependent upon Chief Hoffman approving his contract. This is often referred to as a “straw poll” and is expressly allowed by the law because it is not binding and everyone remains free to change their mind. Staff was instructed to add the matter to an agenda for a formal, public vote, which is scheduled to take place at the next Council Meeting on Tuesday, November 20.

The article styles the email thread as expressing a worry that the meeting described above was improperly held. To the contrary, the emails are expressing concern that Council’s discussion of a significant personnel contract was completely undermined by leaks of the meeting details, thus creating the possibility of being questioned about a contract that did not yet exist because the matter has not yet been voted on. The language from the emails that is included in the article shows a genuine concern about the use of proper channels for the release of information, and a desire to remain candid and open.

In fact, this Council has worked to expand the information channels to all Borough residents, by creating an annual Town Hall meeting, where we listen and citizens speak; to recording all meetings so that people who can not attend in person can still be kept current on Borough business. In addition, the phone numbers and email addresses of each Council member are available on the Borough’s website and many members can also be contacted via social media sites.

Borough Council is extremely sensitive to the requirements of the Sunshine Law. The answer to the question posed in the article’s title is an emphatic No. There was no violation of the Sunshine Law.

Finally, Chief Hoffman has the full and unequivocal support of Council. We are committed to providing him with the range of tools he needs to move into this leadership position and enjoy success.

This ends the press release from the Borough of Ambler.

Our response to this press release was initially much longer. However, we just want to point out a couple things.

Council Member Sara Hertz refers to the information about the consultant, which she refers to as a “mentor,” as a “serious leak.” If they weren’t going to share publicly that the contract for the new chief had this “mentor” provision, how were they going to explain the need to hire a mentor/consultant when it was discussed and voted on publicly? Would the full context of the situation be revealed at that time or would it be explained as a more general police matter?

The information becoming public also shows that someone likely within the government of Ambler felt that it was in the public interest for it to be revealed.

Was the matter a violation of the Sunshine Act? Its questionable. The act is vague, doesn’t really have teeth and is rare for anyone to be penalized. The question at hand is whether the hiring of a consultant directly tied to a personnel matter still needs to be kept as an independent process or does its connection to a personnel matter trump that? There likely isn’t a clear answer to be found.

So now the public knows more about the situation and its impact on the police force. That was our reason for publishing the article in the first place.

Let us know what you think in the comments.