MEDIA – A state court judge has overruled preliminary objections raised by Upper Darby Township’s former Chief Administrative Officer in litigation the Township Council initiated, seeking a declaration that its dismissal of him was proper.
The Upper Darby Township Council filed a petition for a declaratory judgment in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas on June 7 versus former Chief Administrative Officer Vincent Rongione. All parties are of Upper Darby.
“On June 1, 2022, Upper Darby Township Council (Council) voted six to five, that Vincent Rongione had forfeited the office of Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Upper Darby Township. Rongione disputes Upper Darby Township Council’s authority to forfeit his office. Upper Darby Township properly advertised and lawfully put on the agenda sufficient notice to the public to comply with [the Sunshine Act],” the petition said.
“Rongione is currently carrying out the role of CAO and directing the department’s personnel. Due to the action of Council being disputed by Rongione, the Upper Darby Police have requested that the Special Solicitor obtain a court order resolving the dispute before they will enforce the action of Council. Without this Court’s final order, the Council has no way to enforce its action.”
The Council explained that they took the action due to its feeling that Rongione lacked sufficient knowledge of Borough accounts and thus, the qualifications of his office.
“On June 1, 2022, there was a legislative meeting of Council. During the meeting, there was a discussion of the mayor’s recent investigation into the finances of the Township. During that discussion, Councilors Brian Andruszko and Meaghan Wagner questioned the CAO on two main topics. The first line of questions was over the alleged overspending of the budget for 2021. The second discussion probed the CAO’s knowledge of specific types of restricted accounts, and the movement of funds in and out of these accounts. At the end of the questioning there was a motion that the CAO lacks the necessary qualifications for his office and therefore has forfeited it under Section 501(c)(1). That section specifically says that if the CAO ‘lacks at any time any qualification for the office as prescribed by this Charter or by law,’ he is to forfeit the office,” the petition stated.
“The CAO’s qualifications for office are spelled out, in one sentence, in Section 502: ‘The Chief Administrative Officer shall be appointed solely on the basis of executive and administrative qualifications with a background so as to prepare the appointee to assume the responsibility for administering Township operations.’ Council decided by a vote of six to five that the CAO’s current understanding of restricted accounts, as well as deficient answers to questions about the budget, showed that he lacked the executive and administrative qualifications described in Section 502.’ Council acted rationally and lawfully when it voted to forfeit the CAO’s office.”
UPDATE
Rongione filed preliminary objections in the matter on July 7, countering that the Home Rule Charter did not confer jurisdiction in the matter to the Court – an action not legally permitted under state law, his counsel said.
“Since January 2020, Rongione performed brilliantly as CAO and helped the Township manage the administration of public services throughout the Coronavirus pandemic. Additionally, Rongione maintains the support and confidence of the duly elected Mayor of Upper Darby Township. Petitioner alleges that respondent lacks the qualifications necessary to retain his position as Chief Administrative Officer. On June 1, 2022, Upper Darby Township Council voted six to five, that respondent had forfeited the office of Chief Administrative Office of Upper Darby Township,” per the objections, in part.
“Respondent disputes the Upper Darby Townships’ authority to forfeit his office. At the July 6, 2022 Upper Darby Township Council Meeting, some Council members raised questions about the filing of the petition for declaratory judgment filed on behalf of the Council by Special Solicitor Christopher Boggs. Multiple Council members noted that there had not been any vote whatsoever to authorize the filing of the petition and questioned the authority of Special Solicitor Boggs to initiate litigation on behalf of the Council without a public vote.”
The Council responded to Rongione’s objections on July 13.
“Respondent asserts that the holding of his office can only be challenged through a Quo Warranto petition. A Quo Warranto action is an action brought by the Commonwealth, through the Attorney General or a local District Attorney to challenge a public office Had Upper Darby Township Council not voted to forfeit the respondent’s office, but instead, a minority of council or a private person attempted to challenge his office, then an action in Quo Warranto would be the only way to challenge the office,” according to the Council.
“In the case before this court, the ‘forfeiture’ or ‘removal’ from office has already occurred by a majority vote of the legislative body of Upper Darby Township. The Home Rule Charter gives Upper Darby Council the power to forfeit the office of CAO, in the plain reading of the Charter. Upper Darby Township Council is seeking the affirmation of their action, not seeking this court to take action. An action in Quo Warranto mitigates the ‘removal’ proceedings. Here, the action has already been taken.”
On July 21, Delaware County Court of Common Pleas Judge Spiros E. Angelos overruled Rongione’s objections.
“Upon consideration of respondent Vincent Rongione’s preliminary objections to petition for declaratory judgment and petitioner Upper Darby Township Council’s response thereto, it is hereby ordered that respondent’s preliminary objections are overruled,” Angelos stated.
The petitioner is represented by Special Solicitor Christopher P. Boggs of the Law Offices of Mark P. Much, in Media.
The respondent is represented by Thomas O. Fitzpatrick of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, in Philadelphia.
Delaware County Court of Common Pleas case CV-2022-003821
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com