After collecting eight months of earned-income tax, Scranton has issued public notices of the city’s intent to belatedly enact its annual earned-income tax.

The city refused to make the proposed ordinance, Ordinance No. 41 of 2014, available to the public and won’t do so until 24 hours before the council meeting, when the ordinance would be introduced, the city clerk said.

That may be today, in advance of council’s next regular meeting Thursday. City officials have said they plan to enact the tax ordinance on an emergency basis on Thursday, by introducing, advancing and adopting it all at one meeting instead of the usual three meetings.

Such an ordinance typically would be routine and barely register a blip with the public.

The ordinance would authorize renewal of the city’s 2.4 percent earned-income (wage) tax on city residents, and a 1 percent wage tax on nonresidents, most of which goes back to their hometowns and school districts and for which Scranton acts only as a pass-through.

However, the mistake and belated adoption became one of the grounds of a lawsuit filed last month by opponents of the city’s new 0.75 percent commuter tax. The lawsuit states the commuter tax is based on the city’s existing earned-income taxes, which the city failed to renew, and the city should not be allowed to levy an additional wage tax on commuters.

After the first of three public notices of Scranton’s Ordinance No. 41 appeared in The Times-Tribune on Aug. 16, 22 and 29, attorney Bill Jones, who represents commuter tax opponents, went to City Hall to see it.

The city clerk wouldn’t give it to him.

“They’re saying this document exists and they intend to adopt it, but the public can’t see it,” Mr. Jones said. “It is prejudicing me and my client because it clearly deals with the subject matter of the lawsuit.”

A reporter for The Times-Tribune last week asked to see Ordinance No. 41 and also was denied. It’s still a draft and — like all other ordinances — would become available 24 hours before the council meeting at which it would be introduced, City Clerk Lori Reed said.

The city is following state Act 53, the Local Tax Enabling Act, which requires a municipality to issue a series of three public notices of the intention to enact legislation. That notice must run in a newspaper of general circulation once a week for three weeks. It says nothing about providing to the public a copy of the draft ordinance.

“As far as the legislation associated with this, it will be available (to the public) once it’s been finalized and placed on council’s agenda,” Ms. Reed said.

That policy seems to fly in the face of the Right to Know Law, as well as common sense, Mr. Jones said. He questioned how a tax ordinance could be so important that three legal notices be needed, but yet the public can’t see the ordinance.

Scranton’s public notices also do not state a time, place or date when the ordinance would be enacted, he added.

Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania NewsMedia Association, agreed. Even if the Local Tax Enabling Act is silent on whether such an ordinance should immediately be made available to the public, she believes it should be readily available under the Right to Know Law.

“They intend to pass it. It has reached a critical point where it is no longer a draft,” Ms. Melewsky said. “It is certainly not in the public’s best interest” to withhold it.

Nathanael Byerly, deputy director of the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records, said that if the dispute came before his office, “We would look at whether or not it’s a public record. The big question is, is it a draft?”

Mr. Byerly noted that even if city officials believe they can legally withhold the ordinance until the day before a meeting, “they have discretion to release it” sooner.

“In situations impacting rights and financial well-being looking forward, why not release it?” Mr. Byerly asked. “It seems like the more involvement you would have with the public, the better.”

Contact the writer:

jlockwood@timesshamrock.com, @jlockwoodTT on Twitter