Back in August, I told you about a mandamus action that District Attorney Steve Barratta filed against the Northampton County Executive. The suit was filed after 11instances in which the Exec has prevented Baratta from onboarding new hires.
A mandamus action is one that compels a government official to perform a clear and nondiscretionary duty that it has refused to perform. In this action, Baratta filed a motion for peremptory judgment, which can only be granted when his right to relief is clear.
It is.
Late last week, President Judge Craig Dally ruled in Baratta's favor. (See links to Opinions below)
In this action, Baratta filed a well-written brief that should serve as a primer for anyone interested in county government.
Judge Dally ruled, as he did once before when John Morganelli was DA, that the county's top prosecutor has the right to select the pay grade for a newly hired assistant District Attorney so long as he remains within the budget allotted by County Council and stays within the pay grade scale they establish. "[T]he District Attorney has not asked this Court to grant him the 'unfettered authority to cut checks from a checkbook that belongs to the County,' is not asking the Court to grant him the ability to exceed the budget allocated to his office by County Council, nor is he arguing for the authority to construct salary standards for new hires by pulling numbers out of the sky on his own accord."
"A cursory review reveals that the Home Rule Charter bestows within the District Attorney a hiring power, which this Court has applied to encompass the authority to select the pay grade step, on the schedule and within his budget provided by County Council, at which his newly hired Assistant District Attorneys start. Any insinuation otherwise is flatly inconsistent with the law of this County."
The Pa County Code does provide that the "number of assistants and salary shall be fixed by the county salary board [which is county council]." But as Judge Dally observes, " Since the District Attorney is not pursuing the unilateral authority to select his pool of assistants or construct the salary schedules for his Office, the Court finds that the District Attorney's position is wholly compliant with [the County Code]. Simply selecting the pay grade step on the schedule produced by County Council does not constitute the District Attorney infringing upon County Council's authority to fix the salaries for his assistants."
What makes this case truly bizarre, aside from the Executive's interference with an independently elected official, is that Northampton County courts have already ruled on this exact question. In the Morganelli case, to which I alluded above, the Judge Dally ruled that "[w]hile the District Attorney is limited by Council in the numbers of assistants he can hire and the range of the salaries he sets for them, he, pursuant to his hiring power, selects the pay grade step at which each of his Assistant District Attorneys start."
Instead of following an established precedent, the county tried to have Dally recuse himself. Not only did that effort fail, but the county solicitor's office was itself disqualified because it was trying simultaneously to represent Lamont McClure, a former Exec and current assistant solicitor, who had been subpoenaed to testify. The solicitor's office was conflicted. Does that office represent him or the current Executive?
(In the past, I've been able to upload judicial opinions and briefs to Scribd. That system is currently inoperable, but I have uploaded Judge Dally's Order Denying the County's Motion for Judgment as his Order granting DA Baratta's Motion for Peremptory Judgment to Google Drive. You can click on the links to read these matters).
You would think that someone who served on Council and briefly as Controller would know better.
ReplyDeleteTZ is Norco's version of the buffoon tRUMP., an egotistical name calling bully.
ReplyDeleteStop already with your asinine comments. Seek help. You are just so pathetic with this every single day.
DeleteBOH You should really not publish this guy's comments literally everyday unless they are actually contributing something other than whining and bitching about you know who. I see you do mention something like that in your post at the bottom but your blog not mine so carry on.
DeleteWhy is it, every time McClure's name is attached to something, it is a mess? When will Zaarinski finally wise up and fire him as Ass't Solicitor? Rudas owes her allegiance to McClure and defends him constantly knowing he is wrong. He was a bully and it had to be his way or no way. Zarinski winds up in court with her legal staff and who do they defend, McClure? He destroyed Gracedale, screwed hundreds of employees, and is rewarded with an $85,000.00 job where he only works part time on Friday's. Sorry Tara but you have lost my vote.
ReplyDeleteActually, Missy Rudas does not owe her allegiance to either Lamont or Tara. She owed her allegiance to the county. She is the county solicitor, not the executive's solicitor. Missy knows this and is doing her job as the county's solicitor, even when we disagree. But what I do find troublesome is that Tara Zrinski cannot really claim to have set out a new path as Exec if she clings to some of his more controversial policies, especially as it relates to cooperation with other independently elected officials.
DeleteApparently, Zrinski has a reading problem.
ReplyDeleteJudge Dally got this wrong. The unfortunate part about all of this is that it’s really County Council’s power that is being diminished by Dally; not the Executive. All this really means is that the DA will have to file a lawsuit every time he wants to do this.
ReplyDeleteIf the Exec continues to defy both the HRC and an express court order, Baratta can file another mandamus and ask the court to hold the Exec in contempt if he or she continues to defy the law.
DeleteCounty Council has the power to set the DA's budget, determine the number of assistants and set the pay scales for these assistants. That power has in no way been diminished. Neither the Exec nor Council has the power to instruct the DA that he must bring someone in at a specific spot on the payscale. That is up to him so long as he stays within his budget.
DeleteWhile the executive position doesn't require a law degree, the possibility always exists that voters will elect a complete moron to the position. Voters are entitled to elect executives who tilt more toward special needs than even very poor lawyers, like Lamont McClure. Dally is correct, here. But he walked a fine line between the will of the electorate to choose a moron, and laws that will outlast any imbecile, regardless of voter preference.
ReplyDeletewould not this apply to the executives exempt cabinet positions, with approval of council on the person's qualifications for the job, in your legal opinion
ReplyDeleteJudge Dally ruled, as he did once before when John Morganelli was DA, that the county's top prosecutor has the right to select the pay grade for a newly hired assistant District Attorney so long as he remains within the budget allotted by County Council and stays within the pay grade scale they establish.
It would not apply because County Council has the authority under the Home Rule Charter to accept or reject cabinet positions. Baratta addressed that in his well-written brief that you should study.
DeleteEven CCAP thinks this opinion is garbage.
ReplyDeleteOk, so what is the penalty for violating the HRC and ignoring a court order? Take money out of pockets (real money) and perhaps this nonsense will stop. No salary for those involved with the violations for 3 months.
ReplyDeleteThis is just another example of Tara not understanding her job. Why would she even want to interfere with the DA’s hiring process? Because she thinks she can! Her hissy fits are disturbing and disgraceful!
ReplyDeleteThere will be no contempt. Forget the Executive controls the Sheriff and the Prison, a Common Pleas Ct. decision is only binding on the case and controversy before it. To think the mandamus is for all time with respect to any fact scenarios that might arise is to completely misunderstand how our law works.
ReplyDeleteTry this form of authoritarianism and watch what happens. It should be pretty easy to get a court order in another mandamus and ask this time that language be included to sanction the Exec if she interferes again. You people are incredible.
Delete