Resident challenges Huntington Township over meeting recordings, retention policy and PSATS advice

A Huntington Township resident publicly read a grievance accusing the township of treating meeting recordings as nonpublic and asked the board to respond to six written questions about its recording and open-records practices.

Marie DeGangi said she requested a recording of a December 8, 2022 meeting and was told by the chair that the recording was for the secretary only. "I therefore requested that the township's recording be preserved," DeGangi said, and later filed a Right-to-Know request. The resident also cited guidance on the open-records website and said the township's practice appeared inconsistent with the records-retention schedule.

The board read prepared responses to DeGangi's six questions. Among the replies, supervisors said they had been unaware of the regulation when the policy was adopted and have since recognized the mistake; they also said the township has begun retaining recordings as required. On whether the township adopted the referenced resolution or the August 11, 2022 recording-retention policy, the board replied that no such resolution was adopted and that the recorded policy was not adopted on the solicitor's direct advice.

DeGangi said she was concerned that PSATS (the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors) contact, identified in meeting notes as Holly Fischel, appeared to be giving legal or employment advice. "She seemed to be giving Pat what I considered, like, legal advice," DeGangi said, and the board said that going forward it will consult the township solicitor regarding legal questions rather than rely on PSATS for legal advice.

A supervisor told DeGangi the township considers the matter addressed for now but will consult the solicitor on whether the recording policy itself needs formal revision. DeGangi also listed Right-to-Know requests for invoices and correspondence involving PSATS and other professional services; the board acknowledged those requests and noted they will be handled under the Right-to-Know procedure.

The grievance prompted the board to confirm collection and retention of meeting recordings for public-record requirements and to flag the policy for solicitor review before any formal change.