County Dem chairman provides details on rubric used to score McGloin replacement applicants

Yahoo

20-03-2025

Lackawanna County Democratic Party Chairman Chris Patrick provided this week details of a scoring rubric party leaders used in the now-paused process of replacing former Democratic Commissioner Matt McGloin.
That process played out controversially last month after the county Democratic Committee solicited applications from individuals interested in replacing McGloin, who resigned Feb. 24. A replacement procedure included in the county's Home Rule Charter gave the county Democratic Party's executive committee five days from the date of the vacancy to furnish a list of three potential appointees for consideration by the judges of the county Court of Common Pleas.
After 18 candidates expressed interest, party leaders used the aforementioned scoring rubric to determine which three highest-scoring applicants should be put before the executive committee tasked with voting to advance three finalists to the judges. The candidates the committee ultimately advanced were former county economic development Director Brenda Sacco, Olyphant Borough Council President James Baldan and Scranton School Director Robert J. Casey.
That vote was conducted Feb. 27 during a closed-door executive committee meeting. Patrick has not released the names of all 18 applicants and, until this week, hadn't provided the newspaper with details on the scoring rubric.
But, in a recent text exchange, Patrick said the rubric included points for government, professional and economic development experience, experience developing or helping to develop budgets, educational background and experience working for or with the county Democratic Committee. How those categories were weighted remains unclear.
Democratic Commissioner Bill Gaughan, who'd introduced Dunmore Mayor Mark 'Max' Conway Jr. as his preferred choice to succeed McGloin, has blasted the process Patrick and the party employed in advancing Sacco, Baldan and Casey as politically tainted and nontransparent. In defending his process, Patrick has accused Gaughan of strong-arm tactics in an attempt to control the replacement process himself.
Whether the Democratic Committee process will survive a legal challenge remains to be seen.
That legal battle, a source of controversy in its own right, began Monday when 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 county court to amend a March 6 court order on the replacement process.
The order signed by former county President Judge Trish Corbett maintained the Home Rule Charter's replacement process involving the county Democratic Committee was in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908, Gaughan contends. That rule, adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2019, 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.
Gaughan and the county's petition asks the court to amend the March 6 order so it complies with Rule 1908, effectively excluding the county Democratic Committee from the process of filling McGloin's vacant seat.
President Judge James Gibbons, who replaced Corbett as president judge Monday shortly before the petition's filing, issued Wednesday a rule to show cause staying the March 6 court order, pausing the process of replacing McGloin and giving the county Democratic Committee until April 7 to answer as to why the relief sought by Gaughan shouldn't be granted.
Republican Commissioner Chris Chermak, meanwhile, said the county shouldn't be involved in and taxpayers shouldn't fund Gaughan's legal action.
Frederickson and minority solicitor Paul LaBelle disagreed at Wednesday's commissioner meeting as to whether Chermak's authorization was necessary for Frederickson to commence legal action on behalf of Gaughan and the county.
Frederickson holds 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.
That section of the Pennsylvania County Code does not authorize Frederickson to take unilateral action without the approval of a majority of the commissioners, which in this case would require Chermak's approval, LaBelle contends.
'That's not the way I read it,' Frederickson said.