EVANS CITY — The borough solicitor has determined that council members did not violate the Sunshine Act while attending an EDCO Park meeting in February.

But not everyone is convinced.

Last month, council member Shelley Natali, EDCO Park President John Rogers and borough Mayor Dean Zinkhann said that they believe council members have held secret, illegal meetings. The triggering event was an EDCO park meeting where council members Kim Armstrong and John McKinney and President Lee Dyer attended and participated in the discussion.

Three members, Rogers said, constituted a quorum and therefore a meeting.

Borough solicitor Sean Gallagher said at the time that he would look into it, and at Monday’s meeting returned with his findings.

“After doing the research, it is our opinion that in most circumstances three or more members of council may attend meetings of EDCO park or the sewer and water authority and participate in those meetings,” Gallagher said.

Additionally, council members may gather at public or private events so long as they do not deliberate or take official action on official borough business, he said.

While this answered the questions around the park’s board meeting, it did not assuage Natali’s concerns about meetings in the past — specifically one in January in which the same three council members met to discuss union negotiations.

“Those executive sessions, all council members need to be made aware of, as well as the solicitor, and should be invited to attend those,” she said. “If they cannot attend, that’s on them, but the offering has to be there.”

According to the Sunshine Act: “If the executive session is not announced for a future specific time, members of the agency shall be notified 24 hours in advance of the time of the convening of the meeting specifying the date, time, location and purpose of the executive session.”

Natali said she believes this is where the Sunshine Act violation occurred.

“That was a meeting that was ratified, and that was a negotiating committee for the union contract which we’re allowed to do, unless I’m not understanding that correctly,” Dyer said.

Gallagher confirmed that executive sessions can be held to discuss union contracts.

“Three of you can meet. That’s fine if you’re calling an executive session, but why is the solicitor and all of council not being informed of all these executive session?” Natali asked.

“Because it was impromptu and that’s what we did,” Dyer said. “Any other questions?”

In an interview Gallagher acknowledged that notifying all of council before a meeting is considered “best practice” but declined to comment on whether failing to notify members constituted a violation of the Sunshine Act, saying that the answer depends on the specifics of the case.

Dyer said in an interview that because the union negotiation was being handled by the three of them, they were not required to notify the rest of council when they met to discuss it.

“It was a union negotiation committee,” he said. “And that was all brought up at the (following) meeting, and that was ratified.”

Dyer said he was still researching the law as to the council’s obligations to inform members of all meetings, but added that there were no violations as far as he or the borough solicitor were concerned.

“Our attorney has ruled. The meetings were not in violation of the Sunshine Act,” he said. “That’s where we stand.”

Still, Natali is unconvinced.

“I’ve had members of the community approach me about these secret meetings and questioning, and as an elected official I’m trying to figure out what’s going on,” she said. “It seems based on what I’m being told, they are having these secret meetings ... In my opinion, the way they act they are covering up something. But I don’t have any proof.”