One notable topics was the structure of public participation in council meetings. Concerns were raised about potential confusion among residents regarding opportunities to comment on ordinances, especially with multiple readings. The council considered amending the language to specify clearly that there are two chances for public comment per meeting, with additional sessions as required by law. A proposal was made to revise the wording to ensure the public understands their right to engage.

Further debate centered on the time limits for public comments, currently set at a total of 21 minutes with each speaker allowed three minutes. Some council members suggested extending this time to allow for more comprehensive public input, acknowledging that the existing structure might feel arbitrary. Despite the ability to extend comment periods, such extensions are rare, and the council agreed that the existing limits generally suffice for their meetings.

It was advised that members step outside for personal calls to maintain order and decorum during meetings. The implications of conducting borough business on personal devices were also discussed, with warnings that such communications could be subject to OPRA requests.

The council also delved into the implications of the Open Public Records Act on their social media usage. The discussion addressed whether council members’ personal social media accounts, particularly those maintained before their election, could be subject to OPRA if used for borough business. The clarification was made that any social media activity related to council matters could trigger OPRA disclosures, emphasizing the importance of separating personal and official communications.

In response to these concerns, a suggestion was made that council members encourage residents to use official communication channels for borough matters, such as email or a designated concern form on the borough’s website, rather than engaging through social media. The use of a reporting app for residents to report issues like potholes was recommended as a more efficient alternative to social media interactions.

The council was reminded of their roles within meetings, with the mayor having the authority to maintain order but lacking voting rights in committee meetings. The importance of punctuality was stressed, with meetings expected to start at 7 PM and members encouraged to arrive early to uphold a professional image and adhere to public notice regulations.

Other discussions included proposed changes to the council’s Rules of Order, focusing on the removal of references to separate Redevelopment entity meetings and clarifying executive session procedures. The council considered altering language regarding quorum requirements and attendance.

The council also reviewed the language around promises or commitments made outside formal sessions, emphasizing that such commitments should not bind council votes. This discussion highlighted the need for clear guidelines to ensure that decisions are made transparently and in accordance with formal procedures.

Public comments brought additional community concerns to the forefront, including library content and the need for precise legal language in council resolutions. One speaker raised the issue of potentially inappropriate content in the library’s young adult section, prompting questions about the council’s stance on such matters. Another attendee advocated for extending the public comment period, particularly for individuals with disabilities who might require more time to express their views.