A senior judge has put a temporary crick in Lycoming County commissioners’ plans to relocate the county register and recorder’s office from the first floor of the courthouse across West Third Street into the Third Street Plaza.

In the continuation of civil action taken by Register and Recorder David Huffman against Commissioners Scott Metzger, Marc C. Sortman and Mark A. Mussina and the county in November, Senior Northumberland County Judge Charles H. Saylor, who is specially assigned, recently denied the commissioners’ motions for summary judgment to move the office.

The lawsuit was filed over a months-long standoff regarding the commissioners’ plans to relocate Huffman’s office from the courthouse to the Third Street Plaza.

Saylor, upon due consideration of the briefs and arguments of counsel, denied the county’s motion for summary judgment and motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition for injunction.

The reason given was that a material factual dispute exists as to whether there has been a full and complete “consultation” between the parties for the relocation of the office.

The judge found there had not been full consultation between the commissioners and the register and recorder as the law requires.

The statutory requirement is that the “county commissioners shall, after consultation with an officer, furnish each officer (register and recorder in this case) with an office and additional space in the county office, courthouse or other building at the counsel seat sufficient to perform the duties of the office.”

The term “consultation” is not defined, Saylor wrote. The ordinary meaning of the term (by a dictionary) is – “The act of asking the advice or opinion of someone …A meeting in which parties consult or confer.”

A compelling definition of the term is set forth in the National Preservation Act of 1966 – “the process of seeking, discussing and considering the views of other participants, and where feasible, seeking agreement with them.”

Huffman, through attorney Gregory Stapp, contends in his brief that his advice or opinion was never solicited.

However, this assertion is strongly disputed by defendants, particularly since a mediation session was attempted to resolve this litigation, Saylor wrote.

“It is apparent that Huffman has been somewhat ‘dilatory’ in having the ‘consultation’ in order to forestall the movement of his office to the location across the street from the courthouse proposed by the defendants,” Saylor stated.

It is apparent the commissioners have already made a determination of the new location, although no formal action has been taken at a duly advertised public meeting, the judge wrote.

Summary judgment is not allowable where the facts on a material issue are disputed by the parties, Saylor wrote. Any doubt is resolved against the moving party, he wrote.

Saylor said that there must be a consultation, as that term is defined; it is to be scheduled within 45 days of the date (June 26) thereof, with all necessary participants including the architect and engineer, if any, in a non-adversarial manner and minutes taken.

At least two hours should be allotted for the consultation, with each party to have equal time to discuss their views or concerns.

Commissioners should place a resolution on its agenda at a regular meeting with public input before the vote is taken on the matter, he wrote.