In October, some interesting things happened between Cecil Township in PA and (*). According to Dory, (*) kindly offered to make some problems go away for the township. You can read the townships response to the offer HERE. The town supervisors declined the offer and suggested (*) meet with them in an open forum workshop.
The workshop was announced in the paper but, when Rep. Jesse White put the announcement on his Facebook wall as he does with most public announcements, (*) “abruptly” bailed out of the meeting. White reportedly received a email love letter from (*) attorney, David Poole, who was recently honored in Fort Worth for best “solo” corporate attorney. I wonder if being a solo attorney might be something like giving a solo performance.
Range bails out on Cecil meeting
By Christie Campbell, Staff writer chriscam@observer-reporter.com
White said he believed Range canceled the meeting because the company did not want public comment.
“I don’t know how they can say they want to be sensitive to the people who live here if they won’t even let them talk,” he said.
Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, said a workshop meeting is no different than a board meeting if there is a quorum present.
“All public meetings have to have a designated time for public comment” she said, although officials can place “reasonable” rules on speaking time.
Range Resources Cancels Public Workshop Scheduled With Cecil Tonight
Township Manager Don Gennuso announced the cancellation around 4 p.m. Thursday.
By Amanda Gillooly
Range Resources spokesman Jim Cannon was not immediately available for comment Thursday afternoon.Range Resources had first asked for a private meeting with the municipality.
Dory has laid out the entire saga in her easy to follow, step-by-step fashion.
Range Resources: Where the Sun don’t shine
November 9, 2012
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
they’re are remarkably cowardly lot, aren’t they ?
As I haven’t been able to see all of the documentation surrounding this particular incident and therefore my perceptions may not be correct, but would it be unreasonable to speculate that the intention of Range was to be able to say at a later date that a “public” meeting was held over whatever issue(s) were in question, even if the “public” had no say?
Sounds about right to me. I’m wondering what happened to the title of this post.