rachelh@myweeklysentinel.com
CANTON — Canton Borough Council heard from several residents concerning the police force at the Monday, Sept. 14 meeting in the street shed.
Resident Shawn Miller started off the “visitor’s comment” portion of the meeting expressing his distaste for how Police Chief Seeley responds to emergency calls.
Todd Hartsch of South Avenue also spoke during the visitor’s comment portion, stating his overall distaste of the drugs in town, as well as the unemployment rate.
Sara Shannon spoke about the struggles her son has, past and present, with addiction and how she feels as though Chief Seeley has not helped in the way a police officer should.
Local attorney for the Seeleys, Zachary Gates, spoke on behalf of the Seeleys and the recent allegations reported in the Sept. 8 issue of the Daily Review. The allegations were made by President Dave Groover, Councilman Christopher Schrader and an anonymous source.
The statement made by Gates goes as followed:
“Council President Groover: Attorney Zachary Gates, of Gates Law Office PLLC, rising tonight on behalf of Amy Seeley and Doug Seeley regarding a matter of general public interest. That said, Mr. & Ms. Seeley reserve and do not waive any rights either or both of them may have.
As has been alluded to here tonight, there was an article published in the September 8, 2020 issue of The Daily Review, regarding allegations leveled against Doug Seeley and Amy Seeley by persons named and unnamed. Doug and Amy will not occupy this body’s precious time serving the people with point-by-point rebuttals of the accusations, other than to say that they stand by their positions. I would also note that, likely due to space limitations, their responses to the allegations were not published in the newspaper in their entirety; therefore, the brevity of their published responses should not be viewed as somehow lending any credence to the criticisms lodged against them.
Should formal charges or complaints ever be filed against either or both of them, Mr. and Mrs. Seeley will respond appropriately, truthfully and in the manner of due process afforded them by law. Until such time, however, it is neither productive nor fruitful to litigate any grievance in the court of public opinion.
That said, the Seeleys have asked me to provide two suggestions for the Council’s consideration.
First, the Seeleys respectfully submit that should an investigation of the chief of police be considered, rather than having the chair of the council ask the mayor unilaterally to undertake an investigation, it may serve the Borough at large far better for the Council to be afforded an opportunity to weigh in on the parameters and scope of such an investigation before the investigation commences. The Commonwealth Court itself has noted that “[a] mayor’s ability to exercise full charge and control of the chief of police and the police force is not without the assistance and cooperation of the borough council.” [Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie, 63 A.3d 461 (2013)] Furthermore, the disclosure of any such investigation, to the press or any unaffiliated third party, likely first should be discussed with the Council with the advice of the Borough’s solicitor. Whether that occurred in this instance is unknown to the Seeleys, but the general principle makes good sense, in their opinion.
Second, the Seeleys respectfully submit that the reasons given by employees in resignation letters or exit interviews should be maintained in a confidential manner to the maximum extent possible. It is the Seeleys’ opinion that any future unapproved disclosure of a person’s reasons for leaving a position with the Borough may have a chilling effect on obtaining full candor from employees going forward. You may wish to consult with your solicitor, but it is my personal suspicion that resignation letters or internal notes made during exit interviews before separation would not be discoverable in a Right To Know request, pursuant to Section 708(b)(7)(viii) of the Right To Know Law. Any decision to forfeit the protections of the Right To Know law, to disclose the contents of such documents or interviews, seemingly should be put before the Council for its full review as a matter of first course. Stated differently, it should not be for any one councilperson to unilaterally decide whether or not to disclose, to the press or any unaffiliated third party, comments or reasons provided by departing Borough employees; that decision, if at all, should be committed to the full Council.
As always, Mr. & Mrs. Seeley appreciate the opportunity to put their professionalism to good use for the betterment of the Borough, and look forward to many more years of service to the community.
I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time.”
Solicitor’s Report
Borough solicitor David Brann reported several complaints filed about the borough. The first came from Brian Koval on meeting notices.
The second came from Todd Hartsch concerning the police chief and his duty to file a case on behalf of Hartsch versus a local construction company, with the accusation that the police chief “did not properly go forward with his complaint” against said company.
Police Chief Doug Seeley responded, stating that Hartsch “did not give him enough time” to do his job, citing that there were only 13 days between his initial complaint and a civil lawsuit that was filed.
“I have to contact witnesses and interview. That’s part of my job,” said Seeley. “You gave me a statement, and this person needed to give me a statement as well.”
Code enforcer John Raub filed a complaint against council president David Groover, which was not discussed in length, due to Raub being absent from the meeting due to personal issues.
Michael Schultz was the final complaint, with the topic of crosswalks throughout the borough being “faded” or “missing completely.”
Groover responded to this complaint stating that he did take out a line painter last Thursday and will continue to work on the crosswalks.
Councilman Christopher Schrader had responded in defense to Groover, stating that he thinks the complaint Schultz filed was an “act of retaliation,” one of many he referenced concerning Amy Seeley. He said Groover had told him that Seeley allegedly said to Groover that “after the article about me in the paper, you just do whatever you want,” when Groover asked her for more paint for the crosswalking job.
“I believe this is an act of retaliation against David Groover,” stated Schrader. “He is by himself (working this job). He can’t do everything by himself in one day. He has been doing that position for months (seven) without a pay raise.”
The “organized structure” of the borough council was also a topic of discussion. Hartsch had brought the topic up at the meeting, stating he read the ordinance, which states that the “administrator works for the council,” but is also the supervisor of Groover, the council president, who also holds a position on the street crew.
Discussion of the council’s job posting of street superintendent continued, with residents asking how many positions were on the street crew, with council stating there used to be three. They were then asked by residents why there was only one person doing the job the last 7 months (Groover) and how many they plan to hire, which was answered as one (plus Groover).
Police Report
Police Chief Doug Seeley reported 70 incidents for the last month and that he had made a few arrests for speeding throughout the borough. Resident Shawn Miller had stated that “there are all kinds of activity” on South Ave.
About halfway through the meeting, council took an executive session to discuss the street department’s posted job, superintendent.
After about 20 minutes, council resumed, stating that they had hired David Wilson to be a co-superintendent with Dave Groover at a rate of $16.50/hr.
Other news
Councilwoman Lynnette Ambruch reported the pool closing, stating that despite COVID, it was another successful year, and thanked Groover and Amy Seeley for their help in making it a success. She said she really loved the punch pass idea and plans to use it again next summer. Later on in the meeting, she also spoke on behalf of the library, stating that they are looking for fundraising ideas to help keep the library going.
Overflow parking for Pumpkin Festival was discussed, with the possibility of making South Avenue a one-way road for the two days the festival takes place.
Councilman John Mosser reminded residents to “follow the rules,” concerning COVID.
Miscellaneous
Chris Schrader began the “miscellaneous” portion of the meeting to ask about “anything being done with” the allegations against Police Chief Seeley concerning drug removal, as written in an article on Sept. 8 of the Daily Review. President Groover replied with “I don’t know,” to which Schrader replied with “Illegal action can be proven and should be done.”
Schrader continued, stating he felt retaliation from Amy Seeley, concerning the “paper article (Daily Review).”
He also referenced street committee meeting minutes, citing his opinion of “retaliation” by Administrator Seeley, who allegedly coaxed Brandon Wilcox to ask George Jennings to be present during the committee meeting, though he was not actively a part of the committee. He also alleged that “outside sources” have stated problems with Administrator Seeley but did not go into detail.
Schrader continued this discussion with speaking of a post by Dave Groover’s wife about babysitting which was allegedly found by Groover on Administrator Seeley’s desk, which allegedly violates a zoning ordinance for childcare had she started said daycare.
Discussion about the “need” for an administrator began, which resulted in a tabled action, to discuss the responsibilities entailed with that job position, as suggested by Solicitor Brann and Councilman Kurt Bastion. Brann had stated that it is important to “differentiate between the secretary position and the administrator position, which is essentially another name for a borough manager.” This matter can be discussed in further in a public setting, if the council chooses to do so. The original motion did not receive a second.
Schrader then motioned for the removal of Police Chief Doug Seeley, which received no second to the motion. President Groover suggested a further discussion and investigation into the matter before proceeding, stating that the police committee has not met yet. The police committee comprises of Schrader and Kurt Bastion.
Finally, Schrader motioned for the removal of Solicitor David Brann, which received no second. Schrader stated his reason was for Brann providing him with “incorrect information” concerning local attorney Zachary Gates representing the Seeleys during a public meeting. He stated he received this information from a “local government services” but did not divulge into the source.
The next Canton Borough Council meeting is Oct. 12 at 7 p.m. For a full video recording of visitor’s comments, check out the Sentinel Facebook page.