Frustration over unanswered questions, public access to information and increasingly contentious council meetings has prompted borough officials to consider a major overhaul of how public meetings are conducted.

A proposed resolution that could come before borough council in the coming weeks would replace Macungie’s existing meeting rules with more detailed policies governing public participation, agenda procedures, meeting recordings and standards of conduct. The proposal emerged following months of tension between residents and borough officials, including disputes over access to information, frustration with the handling of public comment and occasional personal attacks during meetings.

Borough council spent more than an hour discussing the draft during its Oct. 5 meeting before directing borough staff and the solicitor to prepare a revised version for future consideration.

The proposed resolution was assembled by Borough Manager Kalman “Cal” Sostarecz Jr. using meeting policies from municipalities across Pennsylvania. Solicitor Patrick Armstrong recommended several revisions to ensure the document complies with Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act.

As council members and residents worked through the draft, the discussion revealed what many see as shortcomings in the borough’s current procedures. Among the concerns raised were how public questions are handled, when residents are permitted to speak, how meeting records are preserved, when agendas can be modified and what standards of conduct should apply during council meetings.

Much of the discussion centered on a recurring complaint voiced by residents: that concerns raised during public comment often go unanswered, sometimes for months at a time.

One resident cited an issue they said had remained unresolved despite repeated requests for updates over several months, a complaint that illustrated broader concerns about communication and follow-through.

Vice President Stan Landis acknowledged that council can do a better job communicating with residents and providing explanations when answers are available.

“We’re not communicating with you the way we need to communicate with you,” Landis said.

He said residents who attend meetings should leave with a clearer understanding of borough decisions whenever possible, even while recognizing that legal, personnel and other confidential matters cannot always be discussed publicly.

“When you folks are here, and you have that concern, we can give you some information. That’s all I’m asking for,” he said.

Several residents agreed, describing what they see as a growing disconnect between elected officials and the public.

One resident told council that many people have stopped attending meetings because they feel their concerns are not heard.

“Everybody in town says, ‘Why go to meetings because they don’t care. They don’t listen, don’t hear you,’” the resident said.

Speakers said repeated delays in receiving information and explanations have fueled frustration and contributed to the increasingly tense atmosphere surrounding borough meetings.

That frustration repeatedly surfaced during the Oct. 5 discussion. Residents argued that respect must go both ways and contended that improving communication would do more to improve meeting conduct than simply adding new procedural rules. Several speakers said the perception that public concerns are ignored has discouraged some residents from participating in local government and damaged public confidence in borough leadership.

The discussion also highlighted concerns about civility. Residents and council members alike acknowledged that recent meetings have sometimes devolved into personal disputes, with speakers pointing to accusations of bullying, disrespect and confrontational behavior as evidence that clearer expectations are needed. Several speakers argued that ongoing conflicts between members of the public and borough officials have distracted from borough business and contributed to a breakdown in trust. Others said the resolution should not simply establish rules for public behavior, but should help create a more respectful environment in which residents feel heard and officials can conduct meetings without personal disputes dominating the conversation.

The proposed resolution contains provisions addressing disruptive behavior and establishing expectations for conduct by both public speakers and meeting participants. Council members generally agreed that the purpose of the policy should be to create a more productive environment rather than restrict public involvement.

The debate extended to when public comment should occur during meetings.

Supporters of moving public comment on nonagenda items closer to the beginning of meetings argued that residents should not have to wait until late in the evening to ask questions or raise concerns. They said earlier participation could improve communication and allow residents to leave meetings after addressing their issues.

Others preferred maintaining the current format, arguing that many residents attend meetings specifically to hear council’s discussion of agenda items before commenting and that conducting the borough’s business should remain the primary focus of each meeting.

Another significant topic involved transparency and public access to information.

Residents questioned whether agenda materials posted online should remain available after meetings conclude and urged the borough to permanently retain audio recordings of meetings. Several speakers also suggested exploring video recording or livestreaming meetings in the future, arguing that recordings provide a more complete and accurate record than meeting minutes alone.

One resident said recordings offer a more complete historical record of council proceedings.

“It’s great to have approved minutes, but it’s always nice to have that permanent record,” the resident said.

Council members expressed general support for preserving audio recordings, while noting that video capabilities would require additional equipment and planning.

Armstrong also proposed revisions regarding public agendas and agenda modifications after public notice has been given. Those changes are intended to ensure the resolution remains consistent with state law. Additional portions of the proposed policy address speaker identification requirements, agenda procedures and standards governing meeting conduct.

The revised resolution is expected to be circulated for additional review before returning to council for future consideration.