23-05-2025
Majority of judges rule Home Rule Charter prevails in vacancy fight
The Lackawanna County Home Rule Charter's process for filling former Commissioner Matt McGloin's vacant seat supersedes a state rule of judicial administration that would have removed the county Democratic Committee from the replacement process, the majority of a panel of senior county judges ruled.
While split on that question, the panel unanimously ruled that the county — which as a co-petitioner brought litigation challenging the charter process alongside Democratic Commissioner Bill Gaughan — does not have the authority to proceed as party in the matter. Republican Commissioner Chris Chermak and his attorneys had argued against the county's right to do so or participate in the case at all, since Chermak, one of two sitting commissioners, never authorized the county's participation.
Thursday's ruling comes a month after the panel of Senior Judges Carmen D. Minora, Vito P. Geroulo and Robert A. Mazzoni heard oral arguments in the litigation Gaughan and the county initiated in March seeking to remove the county Democratic Committee from the process of replacing McGloin, a Democratic commissioner who resigned and left office in late February.
Objecting to the HRC process the committee followed in nominating three potential replacements — former county Economic Development Director Brenda Sacco, Olyphant Borough Council President James Baldan and Scranton School Director Robert J. Casey — attorneys for Gaughan and the county argued in court that the HRC procedure violated Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908, adopted by the state Supreme Court in 2019. The Democratic Committee rejected that argument, arguing in court for the supremacy of the charter.
Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan speaks during the commissioners' meeting held at the county Government Center in Scranton Wednesday, April 16, 2025. (SEAN MCKEAG / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
The HRC tasks the Democratic Committee with submitting the names of three potential candidates to fill the vacancy for consideration by the judges of the county Court of Common Pleas, and the judges with appointing McGloin's successor from that short list. Rule 1908, on the other hand, says the county court alone, not a political party, 'shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position' pursuant to a deadline established by the court.
Minora and Geroulo ruled that the charter supersedes Rule 1908, with Mazzoni dissenting. The majority ruling amounts to a legal victory for the county Democratic Committee.
'The logic behind the entire HRC concept is to provide HRC municipalities with power at the local level to govern at the local level,' Minora and Geroulo wrote in their ruling, which notes Gaughan and the county's reading of Rule 1908 'simply defies logic and means every time the court issues a new rule, be it administrative or procedural, HRC communities better hold their breath lest their constitutionally guaranteed right to self-rule be consumed … by a pac-man like anonymous rule making committee unanswerable to any public input.'
In his dissent, Mazzoni disagreed that the HRC controls the replacement process, noting the 'clear and unambiguous language in Rule 1908 … makes its application in this case compelling.' He also reiterated a point he made in court last month that the matter appears to be a case of first impression, meaning the issue before the court hadn't been addressed before. In other words, no court had been asked to decide whether Rule 1908 supersedes a HRC when there's an inconsistency between the charter and Rule 1908.
'As noted in the language of Rule 1908, the application of this Rule makes the selection of a candidate more transparent and, of course, more diverse by creating a larger pool of worthy applicants,' Mazzoni wrote. 'A result which truly serves the ends of justice.'
Gaughan raised transparency concerns both before and after the Democratic Committee submitted Sacco, Baldan and Casey for the judges' consideration, blasting the way the committee went about nominating those three from a larger pool of 18 candidates as opaque and politically tainted. County Democratic Chairman Chris Patrick repeatedly defended his process as complying with the charter.
'We just received the ruling and we're currently reviewing it and we will decide very soon on how to proceed,' Gaughan said Thursday.
Patrick said his committee stood behind the charter from the beginning.
'We knew it was the right and legal process,' he said. 'At the end of the day I'm just thankful that the senior judges ruled and decided to defend the integrity of the Home Rule Charter. … As far as I'm concerned it's time to move on. There's been enough fighting. There's been enough name calling.'
How and when the county court judges might proceed with the three potential appointees before them remains to be seen, but the majority ruling 'orders the commissioned judges that the active court follow the directives of the Home Rule Charter' when voting to fill McGloin's seat.
Standing
The senior judge panel's ruling on the issue of standing and the county's continued participation in the legal matter was unanimous, with all three finding the county lacks authority to proceed as a party to the litigation. They also rejected the claim that county Solicitor Donald Frederickson can commence and prosecute litigation on behalf of the county without authorization from a majority of the commissioners, but ruled that Gaughan does have standing to proceed in his official capacity as commissioner.
'To permit a single commissioner without majority concurrence to unilaterally proceed in the name of the County would lead to chaotic results infused with political agendas this Court is not willing to sanction,' the judges wrote.
Chermak had objected to the use of county resources and personnel in, and taxpayer money to fund, the legal battle. He said in a statement he was pleased with the judges' unanimous decision to remove the county from the litigation.
Lackawanna County Commissioner Chris Chermak listens during the commissioners' meeting held at the county Government Center in Scranton Wednesday, April 16, 2025. (SEAN MCKEAG / STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
'I fought to have the county removed from this suit because the taxpayers of Lackawanna County should not be responsible for paying for a fight between Bill Gaughan and the Democrat Party of Lackawanna County,' he said.
In permitting Gaughan in his capacity as commissioner to proceed, the judges found he has a substantial, direct and immediate interest in the case.
'The employment of an appropriate selection process can have an impact on Gaughan's ability to function as a Commissioner,' they wrote. 'Without Gaughan's challenge, he would be conceding to a selection process which he feels is unconstitutional.'
Whether Gaughan appeals the ruling remains to be seen.
