Commissioners meeting moved due to security concerns

Security concerns prompted the Sept. 23 Sussex County Board of County Commissioners meeting to be moved from its normal location inside the administrative center to the county superior courthouse, according to Sussex County Attorney Douglas Steinhardt.

“In the days prior to the meeting, I participated in a call with the sheriff’s office and the director about concerns the sheriff had about properly securing the commissioner meeting room,” Steinhardt said. “Specifically, the lack of a magnetometer and wands. We couldn’t secure them in time, so the recommendation was made to hold the meeting at the courthouse, which has those protocols.”

While Steinhardt said he could not cite a specific security concern, the move came in light of the late August arrest of Karl R. Heidek, 45, of Jenkintown, Pa. He is facing a charge of fourth-degree cyber-harassment after allegedly sending menacing emails to County Commissioner Director Jill Space.

He said going forward, the meetings are expected to be held back at the normal commissioner meeting room.

“My understanding is steps have been taken to provide for security concerns and meetings will be held back in the commissioner meeting room,” Steinhardt said. “That said, meetings have been held at places like the community college and are sometimes moved when we anticipate overcrowding.”

To that end, the upcoming Oct. 14 and Oct. 28 Board of County Commissioners meetings are listed on the county website as being scheduled for 6 p.m. at the Administrative Center Commissioner Meeting Room.

Messages to the Sussex County Sheriff’s Office were not immediately returned.

Meeting notice controversy

Steinhardt said that when the decision was made to move the meeting to the county courthouse, the commissioners were unaware of the court’s media policy prohibiting audio and visual recording.

“After the decision to change the location of the meeting was made, we received a message from the administrative office of the courts that their media policy did not allow recording inside the courthouse,” Steinhardt said. “That is the first time we were made aware of a possible conflict between the court’s media policy and the county’s practice of allowing audio and video recording.”

As a result, Steinhardt said, the county sent out a notice on instructions of the judiciary informing the public that audio and video recording would not be allowed. This was met with criticism from the public, as it is county policy to allow audio and video recordings at county commissioner meetings.

“This caused a backlash online, of which the judiciary got wind and, as a result, they worked with us and granted a single waiver, if you will, of their audio and videotaping policy so people were able to record the meeting. We made that clear to everyone when the meeting began. It was also live streamed.”

As of this article’s publication, an audio recording of the Sept. 23 meeting was on the county website and a video recording of the meeting was on the county YouTube channel.