The Scranton Times, December 11, 1986
Related news analysis -- Sources protected under Shield Law
Related editorial -- Shielding freedom

Supervisors' charges against Starlight man dropped

By BOB TOMAINE
Wayne County Bureau

A district magistrate Wednesday dismissed charges of disorderly conduct and disrupting a meeting and procession charges against a Startlight man who was charged following an incident at a Buckingham Twp. supervisors' meeting last month.
The dismissal came after a two-hour hearing at the Wayne County Courthouse during which two reporters invoked Pennsylvania's Shield Law when asked to testify.
Magistrate Bonnie Lewis dismissed the charges against John E. Green Jr., Star Route 1, Box 46, Starlight.
He was charged in a complaint filed on Nov. 20 by George Whitlock, RD 1, Box 71, Lakewood, who is chairman of the Buckingham Twp. Board of Supervisors.
Whitlock had charged that Green disrupted a special supervisors' meeting on Nov. 17 despite repeated requests to allow the meeting to proceed. He said that about 40 people were at the meeting, which was called to discuss the renewal of a contract with the Hancock (N.Y.) Fire and Rescue Unit to provide protection to portions of the township.
The problems apparently began when Whitlock opened the meeting to public comment. Green told the supervisors that he had extinguished a chimney fire at his home by himself, since he knew that the contract with Hancock had expired. When Green spoke again, Whitlock tried to prevent him from doing so, adjourned the meeting, and warned Green that he would bring charges against him.
During Wednesday's hearing, Whitlock charged that Green had interrupted other speakers four or five times during the meeting, and that he had been "loud and boisterous."
Whitlock also played a tape from the meeting, a portion of which contained only a buzzing noise which he attributed to the use of "an electronic device of some type or other" by someone in the audience.
Green's attorney, Robert Bryant, asked what Green had prevented from being accomplished, to which Whitlock replied that others who may have wished to have input may not have had a chance to do so.
Township supervisor George taylor said that "numerous" people wanted to speak and that Green had been recognized by Whitlock more than once. He said that the reason for adjournment was that it had become impossible to obtain input, since so many people were speaking at the same time.
Whitlock's attorney, Jeffrey Treat, called Tom Rue, Milanville, as a witness. Rue is a reporter for The River Reporter, Narrowsburg, N.Y., and along with Kris Ammerman-Scofield, a reporter for The Wayne Independent [who] had received a subpoena to appear.
Rue refused to answer any questions -- despite instructions from the magistrate -- other than identifying himself.
After much wrangling during which Treat asked the magistrate to allow Rue to be questioned as an adverse witness, Rue said he would read the article he had written after covering the meeting, but "beyond that, I'd like a determination from the court of common pleas." He added that he attended the meeting as a reporter, not a private citizen.
Ms. Lewis ruled that Rue was protected under the Shield Law, but ordered him to answer questions based on the article.
But that approach soon failed and that portion of the hearing ended with the magistrate ordering the transcript of what had transpired stricken from the record.
She then asked if there were anyone else in the courtroom who wished to testify.
Treat called Ms. Ammerman-Scofield. She also said that she would testify only on what she had written in her article, and invoked the Shield Law several times.
Bryan summed up by stating that the charges required that it be shown that normal business of the meeting had been completely disrupted, something which he said was impossible since there was no normal business at the special meeting. He said that Green had not "come in setting off smoke bombs," and that he was not disruptive.
Treat said Green had intended to disrupt or interrupt the meeting and, while he had a right to express his views, others had been unable to do so due to the interruptions. He said Whitlock had been within his rights in adjourning the meeting, but the charges were finally dismissed.