Coplay Borough Council voted unanimously Tuesday to enact requirements for the recording of meetings. In action, however, council did not apply those regulations equally to everyone.

At last week's workshop meeting, Council President Lou Bodish said it was "illegal" for The Press to record meetings without first informing council.

Melissa Melewsky, attorney for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association, told The Press Bodish's statement was incorrect, according to the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act, the state law requiring public access to government meetings.

"There is no requirement that you announce you are recording and there is no expectation of privacy during a public meeting," she said. "When an agency requires you to announce you are recording, it implies that the agency can refuse the right to record, which it cannot do."

At Tuesday's regular meeting, borough Solicitor James Preston confirmed the public's "absolute right" to record meetings. However, he said council can legally require those recording to announce their intentions and place recording devices in a designated area.

When Councilman Bill Leiner Jr. asked for clarification, Preston said, "The people ... being recorded would be entitled to the courtesy of knowing they're being recorded."

When The Press asked whether the borough was recording the meeting, Bodish said, "yes."

When The Press asked if an announcement was made at every meeting that it was being recorded, Bodish said, "Our meetings have been recorded for ... I don't know how long."

He went on to say recording was necessary for creating meeting minutes. "I would assume all municipalities, townships, whatever, record their meetings," he said.

Randy Kraft, a reporter for the WFMZ website, identified himself and announced he was also recording the meeting.

"Why would I need to put my recorder in a designated area?" he asked. "I don't mean this as a criticism but most municipalities do announce at the beginning of each meeting that the meeting is being recorded by the municipality ... I've never encountered a municipality where you had to put your voice recorder in a certain place."

Preston said the issue was specifically with where The Press placed the recorder, which was on the podium.

At the suggestion of borough Secretary-Treasurer Sandra Gyecsek, Bodish suggested designating the "press" table as the spot for placing recording devices. During this meeting, as with every meeting since July, the table designated for the media was occupied by several borough employees, leaving no seats vacant.

The Press asked if the table would be made available to the media.

Councilman Charles Sodl said it would and one of the employees vacated his seat.

The Press moved to the designated area. Kraft was not asked to move or place his recording device on the media table, however.

In an interview after the meeting, Melewsky said council can impose regulations but it must require compliance from all media and any citizen wishing to record.

"That has to be uniformly applied," said Melewsky. "That's everyone, not just you."

After the discussion on recordings, Preston addressed the issue of whether council violated the Sunshine Act by holding committee meetings in private.

"There is no requirement that committee meetings, all committee meetings, be open to the public. That's just simply not in the law," he said.

"The solicitor, while correct, has emphasized the exceptions rather than the general rule," Melewsky told The Press after the meeting. "The way he's communicating gives the council the impression they can continue business as usual and business as usual is a problem there."

She said she believes Preston's emphasis on exceptions is "inappropriate" because "there is a clear misunderstanding of the general rule."

The general rule according to the Sunshine Act is, "Official action and deliberations by a quorum of the members of an agency shall take place at a meeting open to the public."

Limited exceptions exist, such as a provision allowing discussions of personnel and litigation to be held in private, the Sunshine Act says.

"It's incumbent on [council] to say why an exception applies," Melewsky said.

At the meeting, Preston told council not to be concerned with Melewsky's opinion.

"I, as the council solicitor, have the ability to give you my legal opinion. My legal opinion is the thing that will carry the day for council. You don't need to concern yourself with the legal opinion that might be embedded in a newspaper article somewhere. You are protected if you follow the legal advice which you get from the council solicitor. Conversely, if you go against that, you're not protected," Preston said. "If a mistake has been made, it's my mistake, not your mistake."