The executive director of the Butler County Tourism and Convention Bureau said last week that his organization is not bound by law to adhere to the state’s Sunshine Act. That is an assertion backed up by several officials.

The tourism bureau last week approved changes to its bylaws that removed a section concerning the act, leading some tourism members to believe the bureau board of directors would no longer adhere to the state open meeting and open record law.

At the time, director Jack Cohen said his board would still follow the act even though it doesn’t have to. The act spells out that any governmental agency must provide public access to its meetings in almost all situations, and that it must vote on issues in public.

Cohen has maintained that his group is a nonprofit organization and as such is exempt from the law.

According to Kim de Bourbon, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Freedom of Information Coalition, Cohen has a point, but only because the language in the act is vague.

At issue is the definition of the term “agency,” which pinpoints just who or what is subject to the Sunshine Act.

De Bourbon said part of the definition requires that an agency under the law must perform an “essential governmental function,” which isn’t the case in this situation.

“It is doubtful the convention bureau fits this definition,” de Bourbon said. “Tourism is not an essential government function.”

However, she said, the issue is muddled even further because the tourism bureau is primarily funded by a county bed tax.

That bed tax brought in more than $1 million to the bureau last year, although it does receive some revenue from membership dues and state grants.

“Despite what you’d think would be logical — that if a group is funded by the public in whole or in a significant part, that it should be made to be accountable by meeting in public,” de Bourbon said. “There is nothing at all in the law that ties the amount of public funding a group receives to its being subjected to the act.”

De Bourbon added that while the tourism bureau might not have a legal obligation to follow the act, “they have a moral obligation to be as open as possible, seeing as how they exist for the public good and benefit greatly from public taxes.”

Tourism bureau Solicitor Mike Gallagher said he did not rigorously study the Sunshine Act, but said he doesn’t think the law applies to the bureau.

“It doesn’t look like it’s covered by the term ‘agency,’ just looking at it right here,” he said. “On its face it doesn’t seem like it applies.”

County Commissioner Bill McCarrier agreed with that, saying that in talking with county solicitor Mike English, he doesn’t think there’s an issue.

“We give money to a lot of different organizations and almost all of them don’t have to abide by the Sunshine Act,” McCarrier said. “Just because an entity receives tax dollars doesn’t mean it has to abide by it.”

However, McCarrier added that the tourism bureau still should abide by the act, if only to show that it doesn’t have anything to hide.

He added that the organization is audited on an annual basis and that those findings are public.

English did not want to comment on the matter when contacted Tuesday.

The tourism bureau also approved another change last week when it stripped a requirement that any check totaling more than $500 had to have two signatures on it.

A survey of several nonprofit agencies in the county found that they require two signatures for issuing checks.

The Community Health Clinic requires two signatures on every check, regardless of the dollar amount. Approved check signers are three board members and the executive director.

The Butler County Humane Society requires two signatures, regardless of dollar amount. Approved signers include the executive director and the four executive board members.

The Butler County Chamber of Commerce requires two signatures on any check more than $500, but it typically has two on all checks.

Butler Downtown and Leadership Butler County have the same policy.

Catholic Charities in Butler has a two-signature policy on “higher amount” checks.