Trending
Almost one year to the day, another court ruling has ruled in favor of Lycoming County Controller Krista Rogers in the ongoing dispute with Lycoming County's commissioners over interpretations of county code as it relates to which office is responsible for certain fiscal functions in county government.
The current ruling comes from the state's Commonwealth Court affirms the ruling from the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas' visiting Potter County Senior Judge John B. Leete last January -- a ruling the commissioners chose to appeal.
The dispute started in April of 2021 when the commissioners and the county's salary board moved the responsibilities for payroll, accounts payable and general ledger functions from the Controller's Office to the County's Office of Budget and Finance. Employees responsible for performing those functions were also moved.
In December 2021, the controller filed a complaint stating that those fiscal functions were her responsibility and the commissioners had illegally transferred the employees. In early July of 2022 the court ruled in favor of the controller. The commissioners requested a discovery and evidentiary hearing mid-July and a hearing was scheduled. Ultimately in December 2022, the court again ruled in favor of the controller and instructed the commissioners to return the fiscal functions and employees to the controller.
That ruling stated that the county code assigns the "commissioners as the managers and administrators of fiscal affairs of the county," and while it enables the "commissioners to organize an audit to supplement the official acts of the controller, the responsibility for supervision of the fiscal affairs of the county, including supervision of employees related to the fiscal affairs of the county to the controller requires the controller to select and administer the from and manner of maintaining financial records connect to the fiscal affairs of the county."
The commissioners appealed that ruling in January 2023.
In the latest appeal, the commissioners had contended that the trial court erred in "discounting their authority" under the county code.
The ruling this week stated that the commissioners overlooked "that the controller is as much a constitutional county officer as they are," having been established by the state's Constitution.
Throughout the ongoing controversy, the commissioners at the time, Rick Mirabirto, Tony Mussare and Scott Metzger, have contended that what they are seeking is clarity on who has the ultimate responsibility in the county code for the fiscal affairs of the county.
Prior to leaving office, Mirabito had stated, "For me it's an issue of principle that as commissioners, we are responsible in the code for the fiscal affairs of the county. We're responsible for making sure that we do everything we can to protect the taxpayers' money and that we act fiscally in a prudent way."
Mussare had also stated, "It's not about Krista Rogers. It's about the controller's office and the county commissioners' office. Who has the ultimate authority of the fiscal affairs of the county government? That's what this is about -- not between us and Krista."
"So, if you think this is a waste of money, I will tell you, no, it is not. It needs clarifying," Mussare said.
At that time, Metzger had stated that he just wanted it done.
"I fully understand my colleagues stating it's an issue of principle. It's an interpretation of law and I agree with that. But, enough is enough," he had said.
In a statement released following Friday's ruling, the current board of commissioners said: "This case was started by the controller. The controller opted to litigate how the payroll, accounts payable and the general ledger functions had been done in the county for decades. A prior board of commissioners allowed her these functions previously and it did not function to its satisfaction. The controller filed the case after that board of commissioners returned these functions to how they had been done previously. The case involved interpretation of the county code. The county's position was that there was more than one way to perform these functions, while respecting the controller's responsibilities and the commissioners' role over the fiscal affairs of the county. The Commonwealth Court's decision interpreted the county code differently. This board of commissioners will review the decision and consider its options and decide how to move forward in the best interest of the residents and taxpayers of Lycoming County."