Judge hears contract report

The township solicitor says the contract extension is flawed and 'bizarre.'
By MARY GRZEBIENIAK
VINDICATOR CORRESPONDENT
NEW CASTLE, Pa. -- Judge John Hodge is expected to decide in 30 days on whether the legality of a Union Township police contract extension should be decided in Lawrence County Common Pleas Court.
He heard testimony Wednesday on the matter and took arguments from the township and union lawyers under advisement.
The police union is trying to stop the court from holding a hearing on the validity of the extension. The union wants the Pennsylvania State Labor Board to decide the matter.
The case stems from a six-year police contract extension passed just days after the Nov. 8, 2005, general election in which Supervisor Steve Galizia was defeated.
Although the police contract did not expire until the end of 2006, a six-year extension was passed Nov. 14, 2005, at a special meeting -- in effect preventing incoming Supervisor Clair Damon from having any say on police working conditions. An addendum to the extension was then passed at a Dec. 20 meeting, before Damon took office.
Provisions
The contract and addendum forbid layoffs of the township's two full-timers, and require the township to pay them their base annual salary times the number of years left until retirement if they are laid off or their positions are abolished.
They give the police chief $12,000 in raises on a $36,000 base salary; the lieutenant $4.45 in raises on a $15.30 base rate; and patrol officers $4.15 in raises on a base wage of $14.10 all over the six-year contract term.
It was passed by a 2-1 vote, with Galizia and Supervisor Pat Angiolelli voting for and Supervisor Kevin Guinaugh voting against. The new supervisor board declared the contract extension void at its first meeting after Damon was seated in January.
Judge's questions
Judge Hodge questioned township Solicitor Gabriel Cilli on whether provisions of the state's open records law were violated by the way the extension and addendum were passed.
Cilli replied that neither meeting was properly advertised, and that the failure to keep minutes at either meeting means no record exists of whether the extension or addendum were properly approved.
Judge Hodge also asked whether township minutes contain any action authorizing Galizia to act as negotiator representing the township. Cilli replied there is none.
Cilli added that the contract modification and reopener clause failed to comply with time and notice provisions of the law governing collective bargaining in Pennsylvania.
Cilli termed the extension a "midnight contract" and a "sweetheart deal" because it gave a six-year contract extension only days before a change in elected officials.
"This was a power issue between the outgoing board and particularly one member of the incoming board," said Cilli, referring to Galizia and Damon.
Observations
Judge Hodge, a former municipal solicitor, said, "It is a fundamental proposition of municipal law to take action at a properly advertised meeting."
The judge also expressed surprise that there is not another similar precedent in case law. Cilli replied, "You're never going to see another case like this," adding that the situation is bizarre.
Atty. Eric Stoltenberg of the law firm Lightman & amp; Welby, Pittsburgh, representing the Union Township Police Association, said that midcontract extensions are not uncommon.
He said he believes the township's repudiation of the contract is an unfair labor practice and as such should be heard before the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, not common pleas court.
If the judge rules the matter should be heard in court, there would have to be a hearing on the legality of the contract.
In a related matter, Township Patrolman Mike Mrozek, a patrolman who was reduced from full time to part time by the incoming board, has filed a grievance against the township under terms of the contract extension.
The state labor board has deferred action in that case pending the court ruling on the contract. The officer has since been returned to full-time status after an increase in township taxes.