The Feb. 17 meeting of the Evesham Township Council once again saw residents voicing concerns over how, when and if members of council would answer questions from the public.
The issue first arose at the previous Feb. 3 council meeting where several residents complained that council was not answering the questions asked during public comment in a timely manner or at all.
At that Feb. 3 meeting, township solicitor John Gillespie informed the public that while they were entitled to ask any questions they so chose, mayor and council are not required by municipal ordinance or state statute to immediately answer, or answer at all.
And while the residents who asked questions at the Feb. 3 meeting eventually had some of their questions answered by Councilman Ken D’Andrea and Deputy Mayor Bob DiEnna toward the end of the session, several residents still spoke at the recent Feb. 17 meeting about the issue.
First to bring up the issue was resident Phil Warren, one of the Democratic candidates for council in the November 2014 election.
Warren said if the council adopted a policy of only responding to what they felt comfortable with, then each council member would be setting a dangerous precedent, and those who couldn’t be responsive and respectful to every resident should consider resignation.
“It would be a grievous disregard of the responsibilities you took on when you ran for and won public office if you take to heart the advice given by the township solicitor given at the Feb. 3 meeting that you do not need to respond to residents’ questions and comments at public meetings,” Warren said.
Warren also used his time during public comment to ask about the redevelopment of a section of South Maple Avenue — one the topics another resident had asked about at the Feb. 3 meeting.
Warren said he believed council has been vague on its vision for the area, and wanted to hear things such as how the area would look when completed, how it would fit with other redevelopment in the area, expected cost to taxpayers and how traffic and parking would be improved.
Warren also asked for information on how conflicts of interest regarding Mayor Randy Brown’s ownership of United Title & Abstract Agency on Maple Avenue were avoided while plans were developed.
Resident Sharyn Pertnoy-Schmidt also voiced concerns, asking council to do what it felt was right and answer the questions asked by residents.
“You guys are elected officials,” Pertnoy-Schmidt said. “I’m asking you, you have your own opinions, and you need to speak up, and I did appreciate that councilman DiEnna spoke up and Mr. D’Andrea at the last (Feb.3 ) meeting.”
After public comment was closed, D’Andrea addressed Warren, saying many of his comments regarding the redevelopment of South Maple Avenue had already been voiced at various previous meetings.
D’Andrea also addressed the concerns of a resident who earlier in the meeting had complained about pipes leaking in the township library, and asked township manager Tom Czerniecki if something could be done, to which Czerniecki said he would look into the matter.
Also to respond to Warren and Pertnoy-Schmidt at the end of the meeting was DiEnna.
“I can assure Mr. Warren that the technical answers and the specific items that he mentioned are reviewed by professionals of the highest standard…and we’re guided by professionals that are highly accomplished, highly regarded, highly respected,” DiEnna said.
To Pertnoy-Schmidt, DiEnna said the township solicitor is addressing the openness, or lack thereof, at meetings and is in the process of determining a format that will hopefully satisfy most people.
DiEnna said he wanted to assure all citizens who come to meetings that their comments are heard.
“You may not get the answer that you want in the time that you like, but don’t leave this room thinking we don’t hear the questions that you ask,” DiEnna said.
