PA Commonwealth Court rules in favor of Krista Rogers, Lycoming County Controller

Photo from 2021: Lycoming Commissioners Rick Mirabito, Scott Metzger, Tony Mussare,

Administrative Manager Lycoming County Commissioners, Eileen Ebner and

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers.

By Todd Bartley, TalkWilliamsport.com

News@TalkWilliamsport.com

On Friday the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a MEMORANDUM OPINION in the Rogers versus Lycoming County Board of Commissioners lawsuit that stems from the Commissioners unilateral move of employees in the office of the Lycoming County Controller to a different department.

Lycoming County Controller, Krista Rogers was awarded declaratory relief on her Complaint.

Derek A. Keightly, Esquire of the law firm Rudolph Clarke, LLC has been representing Rogers in the litigation and offered the following statement in light of the Commonwealth Court finding for his client;

“We are very pleased with today’s ruling by the en banc Commonwealth Court. Now that these issues have been definitively addressed by the appeals court, Controller Rogers looks forward to Lycoming County’s return to a structure of fiscal affairs which aligns with the intent of the Pennsylvania Legislature. As has always been Controller Rogers’ goal with this litigation, the taxpayers of Lycoming County will now benefit from proper financial oversight of all tax dollars expended by the County.”

The MEMORANDUM OPINION excoriates the Lycoming County Board of Commissioners including current Commissioner Scott Metzger plus former Commissioners Tony Mussare and Rick Mirabito.

From the PA Commonweath Court MEMORANDUM OPINION authored BY JUDGE WOJCIK and FILED: January 26, 2024.

“The Lycoming County (County) Board of Commissioners, and Commissioners Tony Mussare, Scott Metzger, and Rick Mirabito (collectively, Commissioners) appeal the order of the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas (trial court) denying their motions for post-trial relief and entering judgment in favor of Krista Rogers (Controller) on her Complaint seeking declaratory relief. We affirm.”

“In short, the Commissioners’ claims in this regard are without merit and do not compel reversal of the trial court’s order in this case.”

Section IV

“However, the Commissioners overlook that the Controller

is as much a constitutional county officer as are they.”

See article IX, section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, Pa. Const. art. IX, §4 (“County officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders, treasurers, sheriffs, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of the courts, and such others as may from time to time be provided by law.”) (emphasis added).

As recounted above, Sections 1702, 1705, 1750, and 1751 of The County Code confer specific powers upon the Controller that cannot be impaired or contravened by the general supervisory authority conferred upon the Commissioners by Section 1701.

Any other construction of The County Code would be as exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.

12 Moreover, under Section 1933 of the Statutory Construction Act of 1972,13 it is a well-established rule of statutory construction that where a general statutory provision is in conflict with a special provision, the special provision controls as an exception to the general.

“As exhaustively outlined above, the trial court properly analyzed the provisions of The County Code outlining the respective roles of the Commissioners and the Controller with respect to the Commissioners’ removal of the payroll, accounts payable, and general ledger functions and employees from the Controller’s Office to the Finance Office.

Thus, contrary to the Commissioners’ assertions, the trial court did not err or abuse its discretion in granting the requested declaratory relief based on the Commissioners’ improper and unauthorized actions in this regard.”

Section V

“Herein, although there are disputed facts relating to whether the Controller can perform her required duties under The County Code, the thrust of the Commissioners’ argument is based on their misapplication of the various grants of authority under The County Code.”

The Lycoming County Board of Commissioners issued a press release after their seventh loss in this matter.

“This case was started by the Controller. The Controller opted to litigate how the payroll, accounts payable, and the general ledger functions has been done in the County for decades. A prior Board of Commissioners allowed her these functions previously and it did not function to its satisfaction. The Controller filed the case after the Board of Commissioners returned these functions to how they had been done previously.

The case involved interpretation of the County Code. The County’s position was that there was more than one way to perform these functions, while respecting the Controller’s responsibilities and the Commissioners’ role over the fiscal affairs of the County. The Commonwealth Court’s decision interpreted the County Code differently. This Board of Commissioners will review the decision and consider its options and decide how to move forward in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers of Lycoming County.”