Lackawanna Democratic Committee: Home rule trumps court rule on vacancy
The committee met Monday's deadline to file an answer to the litigation started last month by Commissioner Bill Gaughan and the county over filling the vacancy of former Commissioner Matt McGloin for the nearly three years remaining on his unexpired term.
The Home Rule Charter process had the Democratic Committee picking three candidates to forward to county judges, who then would select one of the three to fill the McGloin vacancy.
Under the Home Rule Charter procedure, the county Democratic Committee named three candidates — former county Economic Development Director Brenda Sacco, Olyphant Borough Council President James Baldan and Scranton School Director Robert J. Casey — as candidates to potentially replace McGloin.
The Gaughan/county challenge claims the charter is trumped by Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908 of 2019, which says the county court — not a political party — shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position.
The Democratic Committee's answer, prepared by attorney Adam Bonin of Philadelphia, claims the court rule was not established to guide Courts of Common Pleas when filling a county vacancy, but rather was created to give guidance when filling other elected office vacancies pursuant to statutory authority, including under the Pennsylvania Borough Code and the Pennsylvania Public School Code.
'It is specifically denied that the resignation of Commissioner Matt McGloin created such a scenario, as his vacancy must be filled pursuant to a Home Rule Charter provision and not pursuant to statutory authority,' the Democratic Committee reply states. 'The Supreme Court cannot simply promulgate internal rules that change the scheme of an enacted Pennsylvania Home Rule Charter.'
Meanwhile, Republican Commissioner Chris Chermak opposes the county's participation in the litigation and also has filed in court a legal action to remove the county as a party to the case.
On Thursday, Sacco — who is the Democratic Committee's top candidate — sought court approval to formally enter the litigation, claiming she is victim of a 'smear campaign' against her via reporting by The Times-Tribune. If allowed to intervene in the case directly, Sacco would back the Home Rule Charter/county Democratic Committee process that made her the top finalist; and she also would file a separate motion for a protective order against Gaughan/the county 'from orchestrating false news stories about (her) in the local press,' according to her legal petition prepared by attorney Paul James Walker of Clarks Summit.
In response to such claims in Sacco's petition, Lackawanna County Solicitor Donald Frederickson issued a statement Friday saying: 'To the extent that Lackawanna County is being accused of 'leaking' information to the press, this accusation is completely false and not based in reality. Any information which the county has provided to the press is public information which any citizen and taxpayer is entitled to receive. At no time was any confidential or privileged information relating to any employee or former employee disseminated by the county government.'
A judge has not yet ruled on whether to allow Sacco to enter the case. On Monday, she also filed a notice in the case that she would seek a 'Rule to Show Cause' for Gaughan and the county to demonstrate why she should not be allowed to enter the litigation and seek a protective order.
A panel of three senior Lackawanna County judges had previously scheduled oral arguments in the litigation to be heard April 22. Briefs from all parties in the case must be filed with the court no later than April 14.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Vacant Mifflinburg Area School Board position to be placed on November ballot
MIFFLINBURG — The Union County Republican and Democratic Committees have until Sept. 15 to file nomination certificates with the Union County Elections Office for the vacant school board director position in Mifflinburg. The resignation of Mifflinburg Area School Board Region 1 Director Joshua Moser was accepted at this week's public meeting. The position will be placed on the November election ballot as a two-year unexpired term because the resignation occurred more than 60 days before the next municipal election, according to Union County Board of Elections Director Laura Seward. The term will run Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2027. The parties have until 50 days before the election to file nomination certificates with the office, Seward said. Region 1 is comprised of Buffalo Township, Limestone Township, New Berlin Borough, and the precinct of Union-Independent. The school district intends to fill the position for the next four months. Qualified individuals interested in the position should submit a letter of interest to Tammy Boop, school board secretary, Mifflinburg Area School District, 178 Maple St., Mifflinburg, PA 17844, by 3 p.m. Aug. 22. School board members must be at least 18 years old and have been a resident in the district for more than one year. — JUSTIN STRAWSER Solve the daily Crossword
San Francisco Chronicle
5 days ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's takeover of D.C.'s police force isn't just another diversion from Jeffrey Epstein
It can be tempting to view President Donald Trump's meandering, deeply dishonest press conference on Monday as just the latest 'hey-look-a-squirrel!' distraction meant to divert the nation's attention from his involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein matter. Flanked by members of his cabinet, Trump invoked Section 743 of the Home Rule Charter, which permits him to send in the National Guard for a fixed period, and announced federal troops would be seizing control of the Washington, D.C., police force to address what he called a 'crime emergency.' Like many in his party, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., saw an ulterior motive for Monday's action. 'In another transparent ploy to distract America from his coverup of the Epstein file, Donald Trump now wants to militarize the District of Columbia,' Raskin said in a written statement, 'to attack crime and clean up graffiti in the capital city despite the fact that crime is at a 30-year low in Washington and graffiti seems to be pretty sparse.' Whether intentionally or not, Trump has indeed mastered the art of diversion. During his press conference, for instance, he bounced from D.C. crime to his forthcoming summit with Vladimir Putin, to tariffs on Chinese imports, to transgender athletes, to his own real estate experience. But his longstanding desire to deploy federal troops in blue state cities to bend them to his will should not be discounted as mere sleight of hand. 'Local 'youths' and gang members, some only 14, 15, and 16-years-old, are randomly attacking, mugging, maiming, and shooting innocent Citizens, at the same time knowing that they will be almost immediately released. They are not afraid of Law Enforcement because they know nothing ever happens to them, but it's going to happen now!' Trump explained in a comically hyperbolic post on Truth Social last Tuesday, explaining his rationale, adding, 'The most recent victim was beaten mercilessly by local thugs.' That recent victim was a 19-year-old Department of Government Efficiency employee, in case you were wondering what crime got Trump out of the golf cart this morning. To be clear, we're all against these ugly crimes, of course, and under the D.C. charter, sending in the National Guard isn't illegal. It's just ridiculously performative and profoundly unnecessary when you stop to realize that Justice Department data backs Raskin's assertion that crime in the district has hit a 30-year low, Data, of course, is beside the point for Trump. Just as his administration is busily rewriting federal scientific assessments that contradict Trump's view that climate change is a 'hoax,' declining violent crime rates in liberal-run cities are an inconvenient truth that doesn't square with his vision of a Washington that has been 'taken over by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals.' Trump's not-at-all hidden fantasy has been to become, to be charitable, something of an authoritarian. And the D.C. deployment is yet another dictatorship cosplay warm-up exercise. Under the Home Rule Charter, Trump's order expires in 30 days, but it remains to be seen whether he'll abide by it. After all, in apparent violation of the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, 250 National Guard troops he deployed are languishing around Los Angeles. Of course, Trump's newfound enthusiasm for mobilizing the Guard is in stark contrast to his delay in doing so on Jan. 6, 2021, the same day he suggested Vice President Mike Pence deserved assassination by the mob Trump had summoned to block the transfer of power. But that was then. 'We have other cities also that are bad. Very bad. You look at Chicago, how bad it is. You look at Los Angeles, how bad it is,' he said. 'We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore there.' Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., said on X that 'Trump's raw authoritarian power grab in DC is part of a growing national crisis … He's playing dictator in our nation's capital as a dress rehearsal as he pushes democracy to the brink.' As his cabinet minions looked on, knowing they were props in yet another Trump late-night comedy fodder bit, Attorney General Pam Bondi dutifully executed Dear Leader's orders. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth seemed to relish the expanded marching orders. Only FBI Director Kash Patel briefly seemed to go off-script when he correctly noted that murder rates in the U.S. 'are plummeting.' Facts may not matter in the White House briefing room, but they could still matter in court. California's lawsuit against the Los Angeles troop deployment proceeded in San Francisco on Monday, where the state is arguing that the Trump administration doesn't have the right 'to execute or assist in the execution of federal law or any civilian law enforcement functions by any federal agent or officer.' During her own Monday press conference, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser struck a low-key response to the takeover of her police department, calling the action 'unsettling.' Oh, it's unsettling all right, just as it was in L.A, and this shock-and-awe arrival of U.S. troops could soon be coming to a blue state city near you. As Trump's long-winded presser drew to a close, some reporters shouted out questions about Epstein. By then, the president was already on his way out of the briefing room.
Vox
5 days ago
- Vox
There's a big, important limit on Trump's power to seize control of DC's police
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. US Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro and President Donald Trump during his announcement that he will use his authority to place the DC Metropolitan Police Department under federal control, and that the National Guard will be deployed to Monday, President Donald Trump released an executive order invoking a rarely used federal law that allows him to temporarily seize control over Washington, DC's police force. Later the same day, DC's Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser seemed to concede that there's nothing she can do about it. 'What I would point you to is the Home Rule Charter that gives the president the ability to determine the conditions of an emergency,' Bowser said Monday afternoon. 'We could contest that, but the authority is pretty broad.' SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Bowser is almost certainly correct that Trump can seize control of her city's police force, at least for a little while. The District of Columbia is not a state, and does not enjoy the same control over its internal affairs that, say, nearby Virginia or Maryland does. The Constitution gives Congress the power to 'exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever' over the nation's capital. If Congress wanted to, it could turn DC into a federal protectorate tomorrow. In 1974, however, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which generally gives DC residents the power to elect the city's leaders. But that law contains an exception that allows the president to briefly take command of DC's police. 'Whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for federal purposes,' the law provides, the president may require the city's mayor to provide him 'such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.' The same law, however, also provides that presidential control over DC police must terminate after 30 days, unless Congress takes some action to extend it. So, assuming that the courts actually apply this 30-day limit to Trump, Trump's control over DC's local police will only last a month at most. Indeed, Trump's own executive order seems to acknowledge that his powers are time-limited. The order requires Mayor Bowser to 'provide the services of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes for the maximum period permitted under section 740 of the Home Rule Act.' The Home Rule Act, moreover, is fairly adamant that this 30-day limit is real. It provides that, absent congressional action, 'no such services made available pursuant to the direction of the President … shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days.' So, if Trump does try to extend the time limit without Congress's consent, the courts should not permit him to do so. Trump often uses 'emergency' powers to address ordinary things Trump loves to declare emergencies. In his first 100 days in office, he declared eight of them, more than any other president — including himself in his first term. His DC police order is just the latest of these emergency declarations. Trump claims that 'crime is out of control in the District of Columbia,' and this supposed situation justifies invoking emergency powers to take control of DC's police. The idea that DC faces a genuine emergency is a farce. As pretty much everyone who has written about Monday's executive order has noted, violent crime rates in the city are at a 30-year low. So, even if you concede that crime is such a problem in DC that it justifies a federal response, that problem has existed for three decades. A persistent problem is the opposite of an emergency. That said, Bowser is correct that the Home Rule Act's text permits the president, and the president alone, to determine whether an emergency exists that justifies taking control of DC's police. The relevant language of the statute provides that Trump may invoke this power 'whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist.' Broadly speaking, it makes sense to give the president unreviewable authority to decide when to invoke certain emergency powers. The very nature of an emergency is that it is a sudden event that requires immediate action, without which matters could deteriorate rapidly. Think of a heart attack, a major natural disaster, or an insurrection. Suppose, for example, that a violent mob attacks the US Capitol during an important national event, such as the congressional certification of a presidential election. When Congress enacted the Home Rule Act, it quite sensibly could have thought that the president should be able to draw upon all nearby law enforcement officers to quell such an attack on the United States — without having to first seek permission from local elected officials, or a judge. Congress, of course, did not anticipate that the president might be complicit in such an attack. But that doesn't change the fact that the statute says what it says. A nation as large and diverse as the United States cannot function unless its chief executive has the power to take some unilateral actions. If a president abuses that authority, the proper remedy is often supposed to be the next election. It's worth noting that not every emergency statute is worded as permissively as the Home Rule Act's provision governing local police. In May, for example, a federal court struck down many of the ever-shifting tariffs that Trump imposed during his time back in office. One of the plaintiffs' primary arguments in that case, known as V.O.S. Selections v. Trump, is that Trump illegally tried to use an emergency statute to address an ordinary situation. Trump primarily relied on a statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to justify his tariffs. That law gives him fairly broad authority to 'regulate' international transactions, but this power 'may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Thus, the text of IEEPA is quite different from the text of the Home Rule Act. While the Home Rule Act permits the president to act whenever he determines that an emergency exists, IEEPA imposes two conditions on the president. One is that there must be an emergency declaration, but the other is that the president must invoke IEEPA to deal with an actual 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Trump claims that many of his tariffs are justified because of trade deficits — the United States buys more goods from many nations than it sells — but the US has had trade deficits for at least two decades. So trade deficits are hardly an 'unusual and extraordinary threat.' Some of Trump's invocations of emergency power, in other words, are vulnerable to a legal challenge. But the question of whether any particular invocation may plausibly be challenged in court will turn on the specific wording of individual statutes. Will the courts actually enforce the 30-day limit? All of this said, the Home Rule Act does contain one very significant limit on presidential power: the 30-day limit. And the statute is quite clear that this limit should not be evaded. Again, it states that 'no' services made available to the president 'shall extend for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.' (The law also permits Congress to extend this 30-day limit by adjourning 'sine die,' meaning that Congress adjourns without formally setting a date for its return, something it typically only does for a brief period every year.) So what happens if, a month from now, Trump declares a new emergency and tries to seize control of DC's police for another 30 days? If the courts conclude that he can do that, they would make a mockery of the Home Rule Act's text. Presidents should not be allowed to wave away an explicit statutory limit on their authority by photocopying an old executive order and changing the dates.
