Judge will decide if panel meetings should stop for now

The judge did not issue an opinion yet.

STAFF REPORT

NEW CASTLE, Pa. — A judge heard testimony on whether to issue a preliminary injunction to stop meetings of a panel that’s working to recommend a new form of government for Lawrence County.

Senior Visiting Common Pleas Judge Michael Wherry said he wouldn’t issue an opinion off the bench on the motion brought by Dick Audino, a retired attorney who’s a member of the panel.

Audino, who wants to see the panel disbanded, is arguing that the commission violated the meeting format Robert’s Rules of Order when it took action to re-establish itself after essentially voting itself out of existence.

Wherry said Thursday that the question of whether the panel violated Robert’s Rules of Order makes its action void and, therefore, won’t be answered by his decision. Audino’s complaint will stay in court whether the injunction is granted or not, he said.

The study panel has been meeting since January after voters approved it in November to decide whether the county would be better off under a form of government different from its present three-member board of commissioners.

During that time, Audino has said, he came to the conclusion that a new kind of government isn’t necessary. He made a motion July 2 to cease studying whether to recommend a new form, which passed 6-5. The commission seemed about to disband. Its chairman, David Kennaday, was consulting with its solicitor on preparing a final report, testimony showed.

But then, a panel member, Dwayne Evans, realized he’d made a mistake. Evans testified that he’d misunderstood Audino’s motion, believing it only meant that the panel would stop studying the form of government it had before it at the time. He said he didn’t realize the vote would end the commission.

He consulted with Kennaday and the panel’s secretary-treasurer Joe Cicero, he said.

They consulted with their legal adviser, attorney Charles Mansell, who drafted another motion for Evans to read. He read it at a meeting July 24 and the panel was back in business, charged under the motion with studying a new form of government under a home-rule charter. That same night, the panel officially voted to govern itself by Robert’s Rules of Order.

Audino argued that the panel violated Robert’s Rules of Order by not presenting a motion to reconsider his July 2 motion. He called as an expert witness Lawrence County solicitor Thomas Leslie, who outlined what must happen under the format before a panel can reconsider a motion.

“You have to give notice to everyone who voted in the affirmative that there’s going to be a reconsideration,” Leslie said. “A motion is made for reconsideration, and it has to be passed by a two-thirds majority. Then, you bring up the prior motion and vote again.”

The study panel’s attorney, Phillip Clark, argued that the panel never adopted Robert’s Rules for its earlier meetings.

Audino said that at an April 30 meeting, the panel discussed following Robert’s Rules on how to handle voting when only six out of 11 panel members were present. He said the implication at that time was that the panel was following the format. He tried to question panel members Brian Olson and Mark Panella, who were concurring that they believed the panel was following Robert’s Rules from then on. Clark objected to their testimony, and Wherry sustained the objection.

“It makes no difference what he believes,” Clark said after testimony by Olson. “It doesn’t prove they adopted Robert’s Rules of Order.”

Judge Wherry gave no indication when he would issue his decision.

The study panel is planning to recommend a new government to voters in November 2009. Right now, it’s looking like that recommendation will be for a part-time, seven-member county council and an appointed county manager.