to entertain public comment to some body other than a board or council. We do not take issue with Council’s perspective that its previous practice for developing public comment in committee is superior to the general requirement implemented by the General Assembly, although there would appear to be advantages and disadvantages to both schemes and arguments to be made that either may be preferable depending on the circumstances. Evaluation of the policy considerations involved in selecting most suitable scheme of public participation is beyond the scope of our opinion here, in light of the clear legislative prescription for public comment before boards and councils. See generally Program Admin. Servs., Inc. v. Dauphin County Gen. Auth., 593 Pa. 184, 192, 928 A.2d 1013, 1017-18 (2007) (<HOLDING>). Finally, Council is also incorrect in its
holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth holding that in order for there to be state debt in the constitutional sense one legislature in effect must obligate a future legislature to appropriate funds to discharge the debt created by the first legislature holding that public policy must be evidenced by constitutional or statutory provisions recognizing that an insurance contract will generally be enforced as written unless to do so would violate the law or public policy recognizing that the legislature sets public policy to be enforced by the courts in the absence of constitutional infirmity