Central Bucks has been sanctioned for its response to a Sunshine Act lawsuit

A Bucks County judge last month imposed a $1,500 sanction on the Central Bucks School District for failing to comply with an order for producing documents in a lawsuit accusing the Democratic-led board of violating Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act.

A lawyer for the board, David Conn, in June missed a 30-day deadline for supplying two Central Bucks residents, John Jay Callaghan and Karen Vecchione, with documents they had requested, including those related to the board’s selection of him as solicitor.

When notified of the missed deadline, Conn then sent incomplete responses and said some documents were “confidential under the executive session privilege,” according to Chadwick Schnee, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. He said that wasn’t a valid basis for denying their requests.

After the plaintiffs objected to Conn’s response, his firm, Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, said the district was assigning a new lawyer to the case, according to a motion for sanctions filed by Schnee.

A Central Bucks spokesperson said that Sweet Stevens will pay the $1,500 sanction, which Bucks County Judge Jeffrey Trauger ordered on Aug. 30. “The reasons for sanctions are best described by Mr. Conn or another attorney; the issue is complex,” said the spokesperson, Michael Petitti. Conn did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit stems from a December school board meeting when Democrats who swept the board elections in November were sworn in. The new majority amended the agenda mid-meeting to add several items that the outgoing Republican board leaders — who remained in control until the meeting — had refused to place on it, including suspending bans on staff “advocacy” and “sexualized content” in library books and restrictions on transgender student athletes.

The board also added to its agenda that night a motion to investigate the former majority’s $700,000 payout to superintendent Abram Lucabaugh, as well as a motion to hire Conn as solicitor.

The board’s president, Karen Smith, said at the time that the board wasn’t trying to skirt transparency requirements, noting it had publicized its intentions in the press. But a former Republican board member questioned whether the changes would comply with the Sunshine Act, which requires 24 hours’ notice to the public of agenda items unless they are “de minimis” in nature — a legal term for trivial matters — as well as don’t involve entering into contracts, and don’t involve spending money.

Residents have a right to know “what actions their government may take prior to attending public meetings,” said Schnee, who has been involved in other open records cases against school boards and represented parents challenging masking requirements.

Conn, who was present at the December meeting, advised the board it wasn’t violating the Sunshine Act, calling the agenda items “almost like de minimis.”

The district in August issued a request for proposals for legal services for a solicitor. While board members make decisions based on “the best information we have at the time,” board member Susan Gibson said at the August meeting, “part of our fiduciary obligation is to revisit those decisions if we think we did not make the correct decision the first time,” adding that she “strongly supported” the RFP.

Smith said Friday that the board “has not made any official decision” on replacing its solicitor, and said she couldn’t comment on personnel matters.