Chermak's solicitor files request to withdraw county as a party to Gaughan's legal action in vacancy dispute
Minority solicitor Paul J. LaBelle filed Monday in county court a praecipe to withdraw the county as a petitioner in that matter, a move that reflects and is consistent with Chermak's stated objections to the county's participation in and taxpayers funding the legal challenge. How LaBelle's filing might ultimately impact the case was not immediately clear.
It came a week after county solicitor Donald Frederickson and attorneys with the Scranton law firm Myers, Brier & Kelly filed a petition on behalf of Gaughan and the county asking the court to amend a March 6 order on the process of replacing McGloin, who resigned last month. Gaughan and the county specifically seek an amendment bringing the March 6 order into compliance with Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908, effectively removing the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee from the process of filling McGloin's seat for the almost three years remaining on his unexpired term.
The order signed by former county President Judge Trish Corbett maintained a replacement procedure established by the county's Home Rule Charter that tasks the county Democratic Committee with providing the names of three potential appointees for consideration by the judges of the county court. That process played out controversially in late February, when county Democratic Party leaders used a scoring rubric to shrink a list of 18 applicants to three finalists — former county economic development Director Brenda Sacco, Olyphant Borough Council President James Baldan and Scranton School Director Robert J. Casey — before the executive committee voted to advance those candidates to the judges.
Corbett's order reset the clock on that process, giving the party five days from the date of the order to furnish the court with three potential appointees. County Democratic Party Chairman Chris Patrick resubmitted the same three names, those of Sacco, Baldan and Casey, to the court the next day.
By maintaining the Home Rule Charter process, Gaughan and the county contend the order violated Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908 that the state Supreme Court adopted in 2019. Rule 1908 says the county court, not a political party, 'shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position' pursuant to a deadline established by the court.
President Judge James Gibbons, who succeeded Corbett as president judge March 17, paused Wednesday the process of replacing McGloin, staying the March 6 order Gaughan and the county challenged. Gibbons' rule to show cause gives the county Democratic Committee until April 7 to answer as to why the relief sought by Gaughan and the county shouldn't be granted.
In a subsequent order Friday, Gibbons noted the legal matter will proceed before a panel of Senior Judges Carmen D. Minora, Robert A. Mazzoni and Vito P. Geroulo, who will hear arguments and rule on issues raised in Gaughan and the county's petition. Those proceedings have yet to be scheduled.
Chermak has been adamantly opposed to the county's participation since the petition's filing.
'I'm not going to allow the use of taxpayer dollars (and) I'm not going to allow the use of the county solicitor,' he said last week. 'This is not a county issue. This is a Bill Gaughan issue, so I'm not authorizing it and I didn't authorize this from the start.'
Frederickson and LaBelle disagree as to whether Chermak's authorization was necessary for Frederickson to commence legal action on behalf of Gaughan and the county. They debated that point at Wednesday's commissioners meeting.
Frederickson argued that section 13302 of the Pennsylvania County Code gives a county solicitor the right to commence litigation in matters involving the county's interest. The appointment process and the question of what should determine it, the Home Rule Charter or Rule 1908, constitutes such a matter, he contends.
LaBelle countered that the aforementioned section of the Pennsylvania County Code that Frederickson cited effectively amounts to a 'job description' for county solicitors. It does not authorize a solicitor to take unilateral action without the approval of a majority of the commissioners, which in this case requires Chermak's approval, LeBelle contends.
The newspaper asked LaBelle on Monday if he can unilaterally move to have the county removed as a party to the legal action.
'Well, let me use the Socratic method,' LaBelle responded. 'Can Commissioner Gaughan unilaterally put the county into a lawsuit?'
Efforts to reach Frederickson on Monday were not immediately successful.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge dismisses part of lawsuit over ‘Alligator Alcatraz' immigration detention center
MIAMI — A federal judge in Miami dismissed part of a lawsuit that claimed detainees were denied access to the legal system at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as 'Alligator Alcatraz' and moved the remaining counts of the case to another court. Claims that the detainees were denied hearings in immigration court were rendered moot when the Trump administration last weekend designated the Krome North Processing Center near Miami as a site for their cases to be heard, U.S. District Judge Rodolfo Ruiz said in a 47-page ruling Monday night dismissing a 5th Amendment count. The judge granted the state defendants a change of venue motion to the Middle District of Florida, where the remaining claims of 1st Amendment violations will be addressed. Those include allegations of delays in scheduling meetings between detainees and their attorneys and an inability for the detainees to talk privately with their attorneys by phone or videoconference at the facility whose official name is the South Detention Facility. ACLU lawyer Eunice Cho, the lead attorney for the detainees, said the federal government reversed course only last weekend and allowed the detainees to petition an immigration court because of the lawsuit. 'It should not take a lawsuit to force the government to abide by the law and the Constitution,' Cho said. 'We look forward to continuing the fight.' The judge heard arguments from both sides in a hearing earlier Monday in Miami. Civil rights attorneys were seeking a preliminary injunction to ensure detainees at the facility had access to their lawyers and could get a hearing. Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration raced to build the facility on an isolated airstrip surrounded by swampland two months ago in order to aid President Trump's efforts to deport people who are in the U.S. illegally. The governor has said the location in the rugged and remote Everglades was meant as a deterrent against escape, much like the island prison in California that Republicans named it after. The detention center has an estimated annual cost of $450 million. The state and federal government had argued that even though the isolated airstrip where the facility is located is owned by Miami-Dade County, Florida's Southern District was the wrong venue since the detention center is located in neighboring Collier County, which is in the state's Middle District. Judge Ruiz had hinted during a hearing last week that he had some concerns over which jurisdiction was appropriate. Attorneys for the detainees had argued that Ruiz's court was appropriate since the detainees were under the oversight of federal officials in the Miami regional office. Any transfer to another venue would cause a delay in a court decision. Ruiz noted the facts in the case changed Saturday when the Trump administration designated the Krome facility as the immigration court with jurisdiction over all detainees at the detention center. The judge wrote that the case has 'a tortured procedural history' since it was filed July 16, weeks after the first group of detainees arrived at the facility. 'Nearly every aspect of the Plaintiffs' civil action — their causes of action, their facts in support, their theories of venue, their arguments on the merits and their requests for relief — have changed with each filing,' the judge wrote. The state and federal government defendants made an identical argument last week about jurisdiction for a second lawsuit in which environmental groups and the Miccosukee Tribe sued to stop further construction and operations at the Everglades detention center until it's in compliance with federal environmental laws. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in Miami on Aug. 7 ordered a 14-day halt to additional construction at the site while witnesses testified at a hearing that wrapped up last week. She has said she plans to issue a ruling before the order expires later this week. She had yet to rule on the venue question. Detainees at the facility have said worms turn up in the food, toilets don't flush, flooding floors with fecal waste, and mosquitoes and other insects are everywhere. Civil rights attorneys also said officers were going cell to cell to pressure detainees into signing voluntary removal orders before they're allowed to consult their attorneys, and some detainees had been deported even though they didn't have final removal orders. Along with the spread of a respiratory infection and rainwater flooding in tents, the circumstances had fueled a feeling of desperation among detainees, the attorneys wrote in a court filing. Fischer, Schneider and Frisaro write for the Associated Press. Frisaro reported from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., and Schneider reported from Orlando, Fla.
The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Department of Homeland Security's Tricia McLaughlin joins 'The Hill'
Just how big could the presence of National Guard troops become in our nation's capital? Perhaps it will double in size in the coming days, as some Republican Governors have pledge sending in personnel from their states. But another question has emerged as well: could the National Guard members patrol D.C. streets armed?
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon recalls another 1,000 National Guard troops from Los Angeles
The Pentagon has withdrawn more than a thousand National Guard troops sent to Los Angeles, further scaling back President Donald Trump's controversial deployment. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on July 30 recalled 1,350 California National Guardsmen assigned to protect federal buildings and personnel amid public uproar following recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids across the city and Southern California. The troop withdrawal comes with about a week left in what the White House described as a 60-day deployment that started on June 7. Two weeks ago the administration called back 2,000 California National Guardsmen from their assignments in Los Angeles. Troop withdrawal, phase 1: Pentagon pulls 2,000 National Guard members from Los Angeles in immigration rollback Approximately 250 troops will remain in Los Angeles to protect personnel and property, the Pentagon said. At the peak of their deployment, nearly 5,000 service members were dispatched to the region: most were National Guard troops, but Trump also sent 700 Marines to guard federal property in the city. The troops were directed to suppress protests and to protect ICE agents conducting immigration raids. Newsom: Trump's 'political theater backfired' Several California Democratic lawmakers criticized the June deployment, calling it an overreach of presidential authority, accusing Trump of inciting violence. Trump's response at the time was that "Los Angeles would be burning right now" without the military presence. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, sued the Trump administration, alleging the deployment was unlawful. A San Francisco appeals court ruled that the troops could remain. Newsom said July 30 in a post on X that Trump's "chaotic, needless takeover of the California National Guard, his political theatrics in LA have blown up in his face." "President Trump is realizing that his political theater backfired. This militarization was always unnecessary and deeply unpopular," Newsom said in a statement. Raids and deportations has a heavy cost: Deportations are taking a toll on California's economy - and have only just begun Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also viewed the deployment as a "political stunt" and said in a July 30 post on X the withdrawal was a "win." Bass said she would continue to pressure the administration until "ALL troops are out of L.A." Hegseth responded to Bass in an X post of his own. "You're welcome Mayor. These brave troops are redeploying because their mission was so successful. You should be thanking them for saving your city from mobs & chaos," Hegseth said. "We will continue to support law enforcement – even when you won't." The troop deployment has been estimated to cost about $134 million, according to the Pentagon. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Pentagon recalls 1,000 more National Guard troops from Los Angeles Solve the daily Crossword
