DEP to Hold Public Briefing on Compressor Station Explosion

The PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) announced earlier today that it will hold a public briefing to "discuss the circumstances surrounding the Lathrop compressor station explosion that occurred March 29 in Springville Township, Susquehanna County." 

That meeting will be on Tuesday April 17 from 6-8pm at Montrose High School, 75 Meteor Way, in Montrose - the time originally scheduled for a public hearing on four other proposed compressor stations. Representatives from DEP and Williams Partners, LLC, the owners of Lathrop, will be on hand at the briefing.

“This is an opportunity for DEP and Williams to answer questions people in our community have,” said DEP Northeast Regional Director Mike Bedrin. He notes that there has been a "significant amount of interest" in the event. 

As for the public hearing originally scheduled to discuss air quality permits for the four proposed compressor stations in Susquehanna County - that meeting and hearing has been re-scheduled for Thursday April 26 at 6 pm in Elk Lake High School, 2380 Elk Lake School Road in Springville.

Montrose Council, Free Speech & Free Press

Tonight the Montrose Borough  council will meet for the third time in as many weeks. Their first meeting, on Feb. 6 came to an abrupt halt when, after being filmed for ten minutes, they decided that anyone with objections to being recorded by video camera could walk out. They walked.

Remember – that was an open meeting for conducting the public’s business.

Then last week, the council members elected to represent the people, instituted a long list of ways to restrict public speech and freedom of the press.

What will they do tonight? Go early to get a seat. Locals are hoping that plenty of camera- and recorder-laden reporters show up to document the antics of this council. And one citizen reporter is asking that “free people” stand up for their right to free speech and a free press. “Come early and bring a camera,” she advises. Bring a notebook and pencil too – because so far the council hasn't banned those. Perhaps they haven’t heard that the pen is mightier than the sword...

The council meeting begins at 7:30 pm in the Montrose Borough Building, 61 Cherry Street, Montrose PA.

Shenanigans in the Montrose Council Chambers

On Tuesday night the elected representatives of the Borough of Montrose, PA approved a laundry list of actions intended to clamp down on the public’s right to record and disseminate information about the council’s actions. The special meeting was adjourned after the council passed restrictions on how people, including journalists can engage in news-collecting by:

•    restricting public comment to borough residents and taxpayers; 
•  limiting opportunity to speak by borough residents and taxpayers to three minutes; 
• requiring video and recording devices to be located behind the last row of chairs in the meeting room; 
•  requiring video recording devices to be mounted on tripods and remain stationary and unmanned throughout the meeting; 
•  and requiring audio recording devices to also be located behind the back row and be visible.

 Press reports quote ACLU staff attorney Mary Catherine Roper as characterizing the new rules as “wacky”, saying that they go too far.

A good portion of time before the meeting even started council members tried to persuade a credentialed independent journalist to move her video camera to the back of the room. They finally ordered a policeman to take her camera – and this occurred before the new rules were voted on. Their reason: someone might trip over the tripod.

Why are the good councilors of Montrose afraid of people recording their public, open meetings? Meetings that, according to PA law anyone can attend? Meetings that, according to PA law may be recorded?

Perhaps it has to do with an agenda item listed on their February 6 meeting – an item never discussed because the meeting was brought to an abrupt halt. Item number three, listed on the agenda under “Discussion Items” was “Jessup Street, water hydrant.” Nothing dramatic about that, unless you happen to know that the Pennsylvania American Water Company placed a hydrant there, on private land, and that hydrant is being used to fill a small water truck that delivers water to Dimock residents with contaminated wells, but who aren’t receiving water deliveries from the EPA.

About one dozen people showed up that night to hear the council’s discussion regarding the hydrant. The above-mentioned indy journalist was present with her video camera. She started recording before the meeting started, without any comments from the council members. However, once the council meeting was convened, the supervisor advised that people who, for religious or other reasons didn’t want their images recorded, could leave the room. All but one council member left, abandoning the council chambers, the citizens they’ve sworn to represent, the PA state constitution and democracy. You can watch that video here.

A few days before that, journalist and film-maker Josh Fox was forcibly removed from a public hearing in the Science, Space and Technology committee in Washington DC, and arrested – an action that many Representatives decried as shameful censorship. On Feb. 15 the US Attorney dropped the case, finding it baseless and without merit. Fox said that the incident “…serves as a painful reminder that we do not have rights unless we exercise them.” You can read his entire comment here.

SRBC Approvals, Procedure Questioned

Last week (Thursday, Dec. 15) the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) held its quarterly business meeting in Wilkes-Barre, PA. Read the official press release (link) and it looks like business as usual: “SRBC concluded all scheduled actions including voting on water withdrawal and consumptive use applications…”

However, read press accounts and it’s pretty clear that the meeting was anything but. Several people disrupted the meeting with mic checks and questions about just who the water belongs to. In the noise and confusion SRBC chair Kelly Heffner tried to maintain control, but failed.

According to one reporter the meeting was “… interrupted by protesters, and SRBC commissioners completed their voting in private."

Another reported that Heffner threatened to clear the room and the commission hastily adopted the recommendations and adjourned the meeting early.

Some people who attended that meeting contend that the SRBC chair adjourned the meeting when the disruptions occurred. Commissioners filed out of the room, then returned a few minutes later to vote on the items.

SRBC 12/15/11 Wilkes Barre -- Meeting Adjourned Before the Vote from Shaleshock Media on Vimeo.

It’s pretty hard to make out what’s happening because of the chaos, but someone had a recorder running during that meeting – a Tascam DR-07 sitting on top of a speaker cabinet about 10 feet from the table where the commissioners were seated. In this excerpt you can hear Heffner saying “Adjourn! Adjourn! Clear the room.”

But, says SRBC spokesperson Susan Obleski, the meeting was not officially adjourned at that time. In a telephone conversation earlier today, Obleski admitted that, yes, Heffner did indeed say “adjourn”.

However, that call was out of order. “When the commissioners stepped out of the room, they were advised by SRBC counsel that the meeting was still in session,” Obleski said. “The meeting was never officially adjourned.”  So when the commissioners returned, they didn’t need to reconvene, as they were still in session. They just had to bring up the docket for a vote. “Which,” Obleski said, “they did according to Commission procedures” prior to officially adjourning the meeting.

While there are some questions about how the meeting was conducted, Obleski is firm that as far as approving the dockets goes, SRBC is on solid legal ground. They conducted that portion correctly, she said. As for Heffner’s call to adjourn – that was in response to people crowding up against the commissioners. Obleski noted that the SRBC is reviewing video and audio recordings and should have a public statement soon. “But the dockets stand approved,” she emphasized.

“SRBC meetings often don’t generate much public turnout,” says Nadia Steinzor, the Marcellus Shale regional organizer for Earthworks. The oppositional turnout last week should, at the very least, make the SRBC aware of the strong views of the public.  “Gas development is so controversial because of its many negative impacts, in particular to water resources. The SRBC must uphold comment periods and manage meetings so that the public can openly and respectfully share their views and knowledge—which will hopefully in turn encourage the Commissioners to make decisions that truly protect the Basin.”

Thomas Au, Conservation Chair for Sierra Club PA agrees and called for the SRBC to reconvene to consider the docket they so hastily dealt with on the 15th.  “Commission decisions need to be made in an open, public forum,” he said.

Yesterday Steinzor and Au signed on with five other environmental organizations in a letter to the SRBC that asks the Commissioners to reconvene for the purposes of completing its meeting held on December 15. The letter states that when the disruptive behavior made the proceedings unintelligible, and the Commission chair failed to control the meeting, she adjourned it.  “… some attendees in the audience left the meeting at that point. The Commissioners and Commission staff then excused themselves only to return minutes later where they voted and approved 22 of the projects at issue, off-the-record and without having formally reconvened. None of the remaining individuals wishing to provide public comment were able to exercise that right.”

Steinzor and the six other signatories have reviewed the videos and listened to reports from people who attended the meeting. Whether legally adjourned by Roberts Rules or other rules, for all intents and purposes it appears that SRBC did indeed adjourn prior to voting on the water withdrawal projects, they say. “Because the majority of the proposed water withdrawals concerned shale gas operations that entail potentially significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, those approvals demand the utmost transparency and accountability.”