Deliberate Silence at City Council Committee: What Happened on July 1
On July 1, I stormed out of City Hall, enraged. What happened at the Lancaster City Council Committee meeting wasn’t, an oversight. It was intentional.
At that committee meeting, every single agenda item allowed for public comment—except three:
A presentation on Earned Income Tax (EIT) exemptions,
A resolution for a grant application for the Eastbound Connector,
And a symbolic resolution declaring July as Parks & Recreation Month.
All three were blocked from public comment. The first was under Councilor Jaime Arroyo’s committee, and the second and third were introduced by Councilor John Hursh, and I find it relevant that he also serves as the campaign treasurer for Jaime Arroyo.
When Councilor Janet Diaz asked about public comment—because public comment had been offered on every previous item—Councilor Arroyo shut it down, stating:
“There’s no action being taken on this, so since it’s just a report from Council, there will be no public comment.”
Okay, fine. I think it’s insane and undemocratic that he wouldn’t allow public comment on items that effect financial decision making, something of great concern when charter drafting, but I at least expected consistency through the meeting for action items then. I was upset enough I had to step out, but I was prepared to let it go… I’ve been through this kind of rodeo many times before.
However, later on, Councilor Hursh denied comment on his own action items, offering this for the inconsistency in the meeting:
“I exercised discretion and did not feel it merited public comment at this moment. As a reminder, committee public comment is not a requirement. That’s all I really have to say on that.”
Let’s be clear: It’s a tactic… But there are no ethics concerns in Lancaster City, or so the story goes. This man has never cared about process, and that’s why he was content to use any avenue to secure power in his election two years ago after being urged to run despite missing endorsement deadline… I had such foolish faith in John Hursh that I actually canvassed for him, and I know he was being liberal with the party rules in ways by leveraging resources meant for endorsed candidates, under the guise of promoting the endorsed candidates. His marketing just happened to be included as he went around. I’m not anexpert on the Democratic Party’s bylaws and rules, but if anyone else did this, it would seem to me to be a violation. He also used Neighbors United on his marketing material at times, saying you could see him there, and never actually showed up for any real meetings, just one holiday party, as far as I can remember. I let it slide and never made a remark as the President, but not anymore. He is happy to use whatever he can for his political future and is willing to preemptively silence members of the public on, frankly, somewhat minor items because he, like many other Establishment Democrats, is worried about his political future first and foremost and afraid of public criticisms like. “Where are the benches, John? Did you forget the simplicity and compassion in putting chairs out for our transportation infrastructure? Why are you afraid of the good trouble now? Have you gained the world, and lost your soul? It certainly appears that way to me, especially from where I sat last night.” Just as an example of what someone might say…
Tene Darby was wronged by the Establishment. They used John Hursh to shut her out. but the Establishment wants to paint her as this uppity person who has no cause for being upset. Folks, people disengaged from the Democratic Party over this, and yet they keep saying they want to build bridges with the Southeast Residents? Bet that kind of electoral strategy really helps turn out when you need it.
Anyway, enough about how John Hursh irreparably damaged the Democratic Party’s relationship with core voting blocks the year before Trump was re-elected and Pennsylvania was, and remains, a critical swing state... The EIT presentation from last night matters most of all. It touched on Lancaster raising the Earned Income Tax exemption above the state’s $12,000 floor. A floor we were told—repeatedly—during the Home Rule Study Commission meetings and presentations that we could. That guidance came from the mayor, the consultants, and even the City Solicitor, who served both the Commission and the City simultaneously. They certainly didn’t stop me from making sure we repeated this to build confidence. Now, without explanation, the solicitor’s legal position appears to have shifted—and residents weren’t even allowed to ask why. Don’t worry, we can await some remark about how he never said this or that, but that’s just the thing, he never refuted this repeated statement that was being used to persuade the voters on Home Rule. We need a new solicitor.
Last night should have been about moving forward progress for the poor and working class people of this City. Instead, Councilors used the presentation as a stage to walk back their support.
Councilor Arroyo called the projected fiscal impact “startling,” emphasizing how it might cost more to administer refunds than the exemption would return to residents. He concluded that other allocations sounded “a lot more appealing” to him. Here’s the thing though, they never broke down where the refunds stopped and administration began. That’s the real cost. He’s clearly afraid to have tough conversations about taxation equity.
Councilor Hursh described the exemption as “a lot of a headache for not necessarily a lot of return,” and said he had “grown a little colder to the idea” after hearing the logistics. That’s some nonsense that translates to me as, “I’ll only do it if I’m scared about my election chances in two years.”
Council President Amanda Bakay echoed their concerns, saying “we can make a better investment for our lowest income residents.” The amount of potential benefit to the individual—$142 a year for someone earning $11,999—was framed as barely worth the discussion. I’ve heard of people evicted over less than that on rent. Every dollar counts to people just trying to make ends meet.
But here’s the way I see it: they’re not trying to solve the problems of our poorest and hardest working residents. They’re just trying to get credit for having “considered” it. It is a sham; it is a show, of the fecal variety.
They are using these talking points—about administrative complexity and partial refunds—as excuses to delay action indefinitely. They’re treating an income tax exemption of up to $12,000 as if it were the upper bound of compassion, when in reality, $12,000 should be the starting point; with Home Rule I expected more than this by people who claim to care about equity. They never investigated this under the Third Class City Code, even after it became clear during the Home Rule process that they had the power to do so. That’s not caution—it’s negligence, dressed up in politeness and being “responsible stewards.”
They’ll clean up the river, and sell you down the Conestoga.
Councilor Diaz’s second question about public comment forced the contradiction into the open with Hursh’s remarks. But public comment should never depend on one council member’s questioning. It should be protected by policy. The right for the public to give their elected officials a piece of their mind at any public meeting should be expected.
This isn’t just about three agenda items. It’s about whether our local democracy is functioning or performative. If councilors can selectively silence the public—especially on matters of budget and equity—then we are no longer participants. We are literally reduced to spectators.
So here’s what must happen. Here’s what I think you should ask them for:
Demand the Earned Income Tax presentation must be brought back before full City Council.
Public comment to be formally allowed on its content, and take questions in writing as well as if it were a budget presentation.
Council to adopt a written policy requiring public comment on all items at committee meetings—just as it already does at full Council meetings.
If Councilors Arroyo or Hursh practice this continued avoidance, show any resistance, dismissiveness, or lack of remorse— demand their immediate resignation.
I’m tempted to give Bakay a one-time pass as far as it goes on resigning, but only because she didn’t explicitly bar comment herself. I do think she should step down as Council President unless she corrects these most grievous errors.
Public comment at any public meeting should not be a courtesy. It’s should not be discretionary based off who is in the room. I see it as nothing less than a civil right.
If you're only willing to hear praise in private but refuse criticism in public, then you're not practicing accountability — you're performing control.
The people of Lancaster deserve better than silence and avoidance from their government. They deserve transparency, participation, and a government that listens when it matters most — in public, on the record, and without delay.
I’ve never been more disappointed in City Government and elected leadership. What would Thaddeus Stevens do? Maybe something with his club foot, metaphorically speaking, but more likely… he would not remain silent.
Give them a piece of your mind.
Tony Dastra
_____
Here are some potentially helpful links to advocate for progress:
YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE MEETING FOR YOURSELF
YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON JULY 8TH AT 6:30 PM
YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO SEND AN EMAIL TO THE ENTIRE COUNCIL (It will load a pre-drafted email for your ease)
YOU CAN CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO VOTE FOR THE NOVEMBER 4TH, 2025 ELECTION
