Court has power to fill vacant Uninotown Council seat
This is in response to a recent column titled “Uniontown Council should have filled vacant seat.”
it is apparent that the seat once filled by Phil Michaels needs to be filled for the proper administration of business. Without this seat being filled, many votes could result in a deadlock because of the lack of the sought after fifth vote.
It is my understanding that there were two votes for a successor. In January, the first ended in a 2-2 tie, with two votes for P. J. Kumor and two votes against him. This caused the motion to die on the “floor.” At a later city council meeting in February, a resolution failed to pass to appoint a council member because it ended with one yes vote for Kumor and 2 no votes, causing it also to die upon the floor.
Councilman Blair Jones did not attend this meeting due to allegedly being ill, and therefore, did not cast a vote. At this same meeting, a motion was made to appoint Matt George, but it failed to get a second, therefore never being qualified for a vote.
Due to failing to appoint a council member within the required 30 days per Act 64, the matter will be brought before the court if any eligible party petitions the court and has the written support of 10 eligible city residents attached thereto. If so, a hearing on the merits will be conducted before the president judge pursuant to Act 64 and he will decide who is the most qualified to hold the position.
While the Pennsylvania and United States constitutions do contain the Separation of Powers Clause between the three branches of government that I assume the author of the column referred to, I strongly advocate his point that the trier of fact decides factual determinations and judges decide the law. The courts have the power under the law to decide deadlocks such as the one facing the City of Uniontown that was evident in the race for President between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
Further, the author goes on to state that nepotism is not democratic and I agree. In fact, it is illegal. Because of the way the author had written this portion of the article, possibly unintentional, closely mentioning nepotism and a judge could easily be inferred that Judge Joseph George may be involved, being that he is a second cousin to Matthew George and Phil Michael. I would assume that Judge George would recluse himself regarding the vote due to his standing practice to do so in any matter that may raise the inference of an impropriety under the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Conduct to protect his impeccable moral and professional record.
However, this would not be necessary because only the president judge decides this appointment. The columnist further reasoned that there may be a valid argument for appointing a relative because a relative may have the same views but with no certainty, as his predecessor. This reasoning is flawed. There is no place for nepotism or cronyism because it is illegal.
Further, the author suggests allowing the mayor to decide who the successor would be. He reasons that because if you disagree based upon the appointee’s performance, you could vote the mayor out of office. In the same vein though, you can also vote a judge out of office. And finally, holding the suggested special election would be very costly and would be prohibited by the way the law is presently written.
If you wish to change the law, voice your concerns to your local state representatives, state senators and the governor – good luck on the latter – our governor has usurped many of the powers bestowed upon our judges and the legislature during his short tenure.
Thomas W. Shaffer is a Uniontown attorney.