MEDIA – A state court judge has dismissed without prejudice an attempt by the Upper Darby Township Council to seek a declaration that the method by which it dismissed its former Chief Administrative Officer was proper.
The Upper Darby Township Council initially 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.”
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.
UPDATE
Angelos went on to dismiss the petition for declaratory judgment in its entirety on Aug. 30, without prejudice, finding that the Council’s action did indeed violate the Sunshine Act.
“This Court finds that the vote conducted on June 1, 2022 by Upper Darby Township Council violated provisions of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. Counsel for the plaintiff represented that a republishing had occurred and a subsequent vote taken, however that action was not before this Court in the pleadings of record. All parties agree that Article C-501 C of the Upper Darby Township Code provides for the forfeiture of office by the Township Chief Administrative Officer. The parties further agree that Article C-501 C fails to establish, specify or identify as to whom the authority is granted to implement and enforce that Article,” Angelos said.
“The plaintiff seeks to enforce only Article C 501 C (1) which provides for forfeiture by the Chief Administrative Officer if he/she “(1) Lacks at any time during his (her) term of office any qualification for the office as prescribed by this Charter or by law.’ Article C-502 is entitled ‘Qualifications’ but fails to enumerate or specify executive and administrative qualifications. This Court does not declare herein as to whether the Mayor or Township Council, either separately or jointly must implement Article C-501 C. This Court notes that Articles C-405 C and C-605 A provide respectively for forfeiture of the Office of Mayor and Township Treasurer in Upper Darby Township. Those articles also fail to identify the procedure and authority for enforcement.”
The Township Council has already filed a petition to reconsider Angelos’s decision, while related litigation connected to this case has likewise been dismissed as of Aug. 31.
“I am thankful that the court has upheld the right of the people to participate in their government and to be fully informed of upcoming votes and agendas. The willful violation of the Sunshine Act is very disrespectful to our residents and staff. We have lost countless hours since June 1 on this topic. I hope this decision will restore some sense of sanity and good faith to our Council. Now is the time to move forward, and I am eager to work with Council, CAO Rongione and the community to do just that,” Mayor Barbarann Keffer.
“It is my sincere hope that we can put this unfortunate chapter behind us and get back to the important work of serving our residents and moving our community forward. Every reasonable person associated with this matter knew the vote violated the law from the beginning, including the people who took it. The vote was taken against the advice of their lawyers and while their own fellow Council members were warning them that this would be the result,” Rongione himself commented.
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