Sunshine Act lawsuit against Bellefonte Borough Council dismissed due to filing error

A lawsuit Bellefonte resident Peter Serefine filed last month alleging Sunshine Act violations against Bellefonte Borough Council has been dismissed over an error with how the suit was filed.

Serefine filed his lawsuit Aug. 22, after the Borough Council passed a controversial resolution making changes to who can speak at meetings without offering the public a chance comment. Serefine’s lawsuit alleged a violation of Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act laws, which state that “agencies must provide a reasonable opportunity for residents and/or taxpayers to comment on an issue before a decision takes place.”

Last week, Borough Manager Ralph Stewart apologized for the way the resolution was passed, and it was rescinded. The resolution had been passed over an objection from Councilwoman Joanna Tosti-Vasey, and temporarily imposed new public comment rules that meant only borough residents could speak at Borough Council meetings, and that those residents had to provide ID.

Though the resolution was deemed null and void, Serefine said he still planned to move forward with his lawsuit that sought to provide accountability. He also called for the removal of Stewart, Council President Kent Bernier and Vice President Barbara Dann.

But on Aug. 30, Centre County Court of Common Pleas Judge Jonathan Grine dismissed the case without prejudice on the basis that Serefine had filed his lawsuit using the wrong paperwork. A case dismissed without prejudice can be refiled at a later date.

Serefine told the CDT in an email Thursday that the Centre County Prothonotary’s Office had given him the wrong document after explaining to them what kind of lawsuit he was trying to file. By the time he found out about the dismissal of the case, he’d missed the refiling deadline, he said.

“I originally filed my complaint on Aug. 22, giving me 14 days left in the 30-day window allowed for Sunshine Law cases. When the judge dismissed my case on Aug. 30 for using the wrong form, there were still five days left in that window,” Serefine wrote. “However, it took five days for the dismissal order to move from the judge to the prothonotary’s office, where it was time-stamped on Sept. 4 — exactly day 30. It was then another two days before the order was mailed, and I didn’t receive it until Sept. 9, five days after the 30-day window had closed.”

Prothonotary and Chief of Clerks Jeremy Breon wrote in an email to the CDT that the dismissal order was handled regularly, as all dismissal orders that come through the office are handled.

“I would like to note that prothonotary staff did time stamp the order dismissing the action without prejudice as soon as it was received, at 3:45 p.m. on Sept. 4,” Breon wrote. “It was then processed and mailed to the parties in a timely fashion, in accordance with office policies.”

Breon also wrote that while the prothonotary’s office does provide commonly used forms as a public service, they cannot advise litigants which forms to use for public action and they cannot instruct them on how to complete the forms as they are not attorneys.

Serefine said the lawsuit was his “last resort,” and that the onus is now on the public to share his outrage and “take that energy to the ballot box.” He urged the public to keep a watchful eye on their respective local governments and their councils, as the decisions they make could have a “significant impact” on the lives of those living there.

He also hopes that his case will serve as an example to any who wishes to engage with the prothonotary’s office in the future.

Serefine intends on petitioning the court for a refund of the expenses he procured due to filing and service fees.

The next Bellefonte Borough Council work session will take place at 6:30 p.m. on Sept. 16, followed by a business meeting at 7:30 p.m.

This story was originally published September 13, 2024 at 5:40 AM.