Thursday, February 20, 2014

Brown Right To Fire Mancini




Both The Express Times and Morning Call are reporting that former Assistant County Solicitor Jill Mancini is suing Northampton County over her dismissal in January. She gambled in politics and eventually lost. Above, she is whistling and cheering on the night that Scott Parsons beat Ron Angle in a County Council race. Her boss, John Stoffa, supported Angle.

She's a far better cheerleader than a lawyer. She had to be replaced as Right-to-Know officer because she was ignoring requests, turning molehills into mountains.

When Scott Parsons and other council members refused to make her some kind of Super Solicitor, despite the impassioned pleas of her boyfriend, Solicitor Karl Longenbach, she grew bitter.

Her luck finally ran out. She was an active Callahan supporter in November's Executive race, but an obscure Slate Belt Mayor, John Brown, came out of nowhere and won.

She likely believed that her career service status exempted her from political reprisal.

She found out she was wrong when she got her walking papers.

Though an indifferent lawyer at best, Mancini was still one of the Executive's legal advisers. Brown has every right to insist on lawyers whose advice he trusts, regardless how she is classified. Obviously, he would be an idiot to trust her.

So I believe he made the right call here. She has proven how much she really cares about the County by suing.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

O'Hare this bullshit hit piece is exactly why you are held in less regard than a pimple on the ass of a gnat.
Whether he can fire her or not is one thing but with your rambling preamble, you work in her not supporting Angle and somehow not loyal to Stoffa and this is really your beef with her, isn't it.

Just as you won't allow discussion of the Stoffa legacy that is less than fawning, you make sure to go after anyone that was happy to see Angle get beat.

By your own statements about her, Brown has no choice. He should immediately fire any Stoffa holdover as they will never be loyal to him.

O'Hare you are worse than an ass. An ass serves a useful purpose. Go spread yourself on Ron Angle's fields.

The Legion of Truth!

Bernie O'Hare said...

Um, he has every right to fire any Stoffa hold over that is a policy maker. That's the way it works.

Connor said...

12:48 is clearly a gracedale goonie, maybe even RMM who gave up blogging n flogging "Stoffa gift" to pieces. RMM show up to the council meeting and "love me to death" I'll be wearing a teal fanny pack u wanker

Anonymous said...

Real Man said,

"I'll be wearing a teal fanny pack u wanker"

No thank you I am not into buggery, mate!

Anonymous said...

is she career service? really? did she apply for the job? was the vacancy advertised? did she take a test, or go through a round of competitive interviews?

or was she just appointed? if the latter...sorry but she was at will.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Hokie Joe says
Lawyers do not have to take a test for legal positions. They are automatically qualified because of their degree. I.E. look at the public defenders. You don't take a test for solicitor positions either.
On the other side of that coin, you are forbidden from firing a "career service employee" unless for "just cause". The Home Rule Charter allows all career service employees the right to participate in political activity as long as the employee is not doing it on County time. You cannot change a career service position to exempt service while the career service person occupies the position (that has already been tested and upheld). The county will settle this case with her because she is right. They better come up with some good reasons for firing her or they will lose in the courts.
She has the right to take this issue in front of the Personnel appeals Board and they also have the right to overturn the administration's ruling to fire her. They can also grant her back pay.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Hokie, It will be interesting.

Anonymous said...

This position may be exempt but her termination was handled badly. It was done on the phone (coward), right before the Holidays (timing) and she was given no time to look for employment elsewhere (classless). Shame on the new adm. They should look up dignity and respect in the dictionary.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I believe the position is classified career service.As has been pointed out, those can be fired only for just cause. Due process would apply. I would argue that, no matter how it may be classified, the Exec has to be able to have a legal staff upon whose advice he can rely. Now if it is career service, as Mancini contends, then she should have filed with the personnel appeals board, not the courts. It would appear to me that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

As a matter of reality, she had to know she was gone on election day, when Callahan lost. The fact that she was notified before brown assumed office is attacked, but then at the same time, he is being attacked for the sudden notice. She can't have it both ways.

It is an interesting case. If she were a public defender who was designated career service, I'd agree with her. But she is in a policy-making position.

Anonymous said...

Shouldn't she have been let go anyway for living with Karl? Didn't think that was allowed? Why did Stoffa let this go on?

Bernie O'Hare said...

It was a violation of the county nepotism policy. I would have fired Karl the night he appeared at a party with the people who were suing Stoffa and making all kinds of goofy claims. Mancini was in my opinion an ineffective lawyer who violated the nepotism policy. I would have fired her, too. But Stoffa was a much more forgiving and understanding person than I. He was unaware of the nepotism until the end. It's sad bc the office was a mess. There were some good attorneys in there who were tarnished by what was going on. Scomillio, with one exception, made a clean sweep. I think he had no choice.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

In regards to the nepotism policy, it depends how long this relationship had/has been ongoing. The policy is fairly new and may have been one that was at first relinquished as an ex human resoures manaer put them in place without first displaying or without the county execs knowledge. Thses policies went to county council and were rescinded until they were properly advertised to the employees and signed by the exec. I believe this time period was somewhere in 2007 or 2008. And as stated in the policy, the county understands that there may be some individuals that were in such relationships before the policy, and that in such a circumstance the superior should pass any hiring, firing, etc. to another party.

Bernie O'Hare said...

The relationship appears to me to have developed after the nepotism policy went into effect, but I am unsure. But policy or not, it is in poor taste to have a relationship with a direct subordinate. Sine Karl is exempt, I would have fired him. But Stoffa is a better person than I.

Bernie O'Hare said...

1:21, identify yourself.

Anonymous said...

regardless of whether or not you can "test" a lawyer for a position, if it's career service you at least have to advertise and interview applicants. if she was brought in as a part-time exempt employee, and the position was subsequently converted to "career service", these procedures should have been followed before the position was filled.

Anonymous said...

Stoffa knew before the end of his first term. Conklin told him. Conklin told everyone.

Bernie O'Hare said...

i don't know for sure when word got out but don't think it was before the second term. It was in the second term.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Bernie O'Hare said...

If you want to make this kind of accusation, you know I require you to ID yourself.

Anonymous said...

2:37 comment

All policies and regulations effecting career service employees were presented on February 16, 2011 and subsequently approved by county council on the 17. These policies and rules were part of the agreement of Declaratory Judgement Action No. 011436-2008 Stoffa v County Council, dated 10/26/09.