Attorney Richard A. Breuer received notification of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision regarding Councilman Ken Buckwalter's lawsuit yesterday. The following information is posted to his website, The Chicken Cacciatore Project.
http://thechickencacciatoreproject.blogspot.com/
****
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Phoenixville Councilmember Ken Buckwalter in his suit against the Borough. In a December 28, 2009 decision the court held that “the Phoenixville Borough Council lacked the authority to change its councilmembers’ pay during incumbent councilmember’s terms.” The Borough's ordinance violated Article 3, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania constitution.
The opinion authored by Mr. Justice Eakin (in which five other justices joined) and the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Saylor can be found here and here.*
*Links to decision posted below.
http://www.4shared.com/file/184141508/6a44d32c/J-33-2009mo.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/184141533/d6bb5967/J-33-2009co.html
For the history on the case, please view the case documents from Richard Breuer's website archives, dated September 2008:
Case of Buckwalter v Borough of Phoenixville
A compendium of the principal filings in this case is available at this link.* These papers tell the whole story of the case to the point at which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided to hear this appeal.
*Link posted below:
http://www.kenbuckwalter.com/images/Buckwalter_Case_Documents.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Well done Mr. Breuer. Finally a common sense ruling and an impressive PA Supreme Court victory. Nice to see ordinances are laws and not suggestions or some other ridiculous definition. Is there corrective action regarding back pay or can we just move forward now in a legal way.
How much are council members paid??
December 30, 2009 10:47:00 AM EST: At the time of the decision, I believe they were being paid $200 per month. I also believe the Council President and Mayor made a little more but not much.
So, when we have to lay off another Borough employee or raise property taxes to make up for the back pay, we can thank Ken for that?
To December 30, 2009 1:19:00 PM EST.....no...you can thank an incompetent Council and it's leadership for trying to do something illegal in the first place.
Congratulations are in order for attorney Richard Breuer and Councilman Ken Buckwalter for having the foresight to question and then challenge the ordinance adopted by Phoenixville Borough Council, and for the win on a unanimous decision before Pennsylvania's Supreme Court.
The decision will stand forever and will become a legal reference for municipalities across the state of Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
Literally, Breuer and Buckwalter made history with this lawsuit.
Frankly, I am proud of them for standing ground and taking action.
Now, the downside.
I suspect this is going to cost you and me.
By Council's action on the original ordinance, which, by my understanding was to stop the payment to Council members during their terms, and due to the Supreme Court decision, back payment will be owed to certain Council members. Not all.
Some will probably collect a hefty sum, and some most assuredly will collect nothing.
There are a few questions to be addressed.
Enacting the ordinance and taking the lawsuit through two court systems up to the Supreme Court came at a price to the taxpayers of Phoenixville.
What did we pay in court costs and legal fees?
$30,000, $40,000, or more?
What are the future costs, if any, of any associated fees now the decision has been reached?
Did Council escrow the affected Council members salary after learning the Supreme Court decided to hear the case?
If they did not, where will the monies come from? That which is left of our surplus? (If any still exist.)
Most importantly, did anyone learn anything from this case?
The only people who win are the lawyers who take your money for all that time and talk!
Dennis Wright, Mercury reporter, details the historical decision by the Supreme Court on Buckwalter v Phoenixville Borough in his article today.
Thanks, Dennis!
Part 1*
****
Ruling on councilman's lawsuit may set precedent
Thursday, December 31, 2009
By Dennis J. Wright
dwright@pottsmerc.com
PHOENIXVILLE — By a 7-0 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found in favor of Councilman Kendrick Buckwalter (R-West) in his suit against the Borough Council's pay ordinance.
The Supreme Court unanimously decided Monday that Phoenixville's Borough Council violated the state Constitution when it eliminated the pay of council members during their terms of office. In December 2006, the council approved — over Buckwalter's objection — an ordinance providing that council members would henceforth receive no compensation.
Before the passage of the ordinance, council members had been receiving $200 a month. Richard Mark Kirkner (D-North) had first recommended the action, citing budget constraints.
A month later, Buckwalter sued the borough, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
"I certainly didn't do this because I personally have something at stake here," Buckwalter said at the time. "Obviously, it puts me in an awkward position, but I thought that this was bad public policy in the first place. I filed the complaint because it's a constitutional issue."
Phoenixville attorney Richard Breuer, representing Buckwalter, argued that the Pennsylvania Constitution expressly for
bids any change — either increases or decreases — to council members' pay for the term in which they sit.
Breuer wrote: "The Pay Ordinance is repugnant to Article 3, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states: 'No law shall extend the term of any public officer, or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments, after his election or appointment'."
Ruling on councilman's lawsuit may set precedent
Thursday, December 31, 2009
By Dennis J. Wright
dwright@pottsmerc.com
PHOENIXVILLE — By a 7-0 vote, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found in favor of Councilman Kendrick Buckwalter (R-West) in his suit against the Borough Council's pay ordinance.
The Supreme Court unanimously decided Monday that Phoenixville's Borough Council violated the state Constitution when it eliminated the pay of council members during their terms of office. In December 2006, the council approved — over Buckwalter's objection — an ordinance providing that council members would henceforth receive no compensation.
*continued
http://www.pottstownmercury.com/articles/2009/12/31/news/srv0000007212733.txt
Part 2
Before the passage of the ordinance, council members had been receiving $200 a month. Richard Mark Kirkner (D-North) had first recommended the action, citing budget constraints.
A month later, Buckwalter sued the borough, arguing that the ordinance was unconstitutional.
"I certainly didn't do this because I personally have something at stake here," Buckwalter said at the time. "Obviously, it puts me in an awkward position, but I thought that this was bad public policy in the first place. I filed the complaint because it's a constitutional issue."
Phoenixville attorney Richard Breuer, representing Buckwalter, argued that the Pennsylvania Constitution expressly for
bids any change — either increases or decreases — to council members' pay for the term in which they sit.
Breuer wrote: "The Pay Ordinance is repugnant to Article 3, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which states: 'No law shall extend the term of any public officer, or increase or diminish his salary or emoluments, after his election or appointment'."
The Court of Common Pleas of Chester County disagreed in June 2007, following the counter argument of Anthony Verwey, the borough's solicitor from the firm Unruh, Turner, Burke & Frees, that an 1881 case, Baldwin v. City of Philadelphia, was the ruling precedent. In Baldwin, the Supreme Court then had characterized a municipal ordinance — the one in question having to do with a municipal officer's pay increase — as distinct from a law, and hence Buckwalter's complaint did not rise to the level of a constitutional challenge.
Buckwalter, arguing through Breuer that Baldwin v. City of Philadelphia was incorrect, appealed the decision to the Commonwealth Court.
That court agreed with the Court of Common Pleas, affirming its ruling in January 2008 — but it left a door open.
"If, as Buckwalter maintains, Baldwin always was, or has become, incorrect, our Supreme Court will have to make that determination. We invite their consideration of the issue," the Commonwealth Court wrote.
Buckwalter's petition for appeal was granted by the state Supreme Court on Sept. 3, 2008, and entered on the court's docket on Sept. 7 of that year.
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania agreed that the case raised an important question on a serious issue that could only be decided by them, and agreed to hear the case," Buckwalter said at the time.
In Monday's decision, the state Supreme Court held that Article III, Section 27 of the state Constitution did apply to invalidate Phoenixville's action, overruling Baldwin v. City of Philadelphia.
In an opinion supported by six of the seven justices, Justice J. Michael Eakin wrote, "It is well-settled the Legislature may not alter, mid-term, the compensation of incumbent elected officials during their current terms.. . . Because the Legislature lacks the power to make mid-term changes to the compensation of public officials, it cannot give such a power to municipalities.. . . . Therefore, the Phoenixville Borough Council lacked the authority to change its council members' pay during incumbent council members' terms."
The seventh member of the high court, Justice Thomas G. Saylor, filed a concurring opinion, citing a different reason for voting in Buckwalter's favor.
Buckwalter said that it was a long process, but he's definitely pleased with the outcome.
"It is reasonable to expect that elected officials be paid for their service," he said. "What is unreasonable to expect is that these officials would vote to change their pay while they are in office. The same logic that would allow council to eliminate or decrease pay would also allow council to increase pay. All in all, I'm very pleased with the outcome of this matter."
The plus side to this is that the Ordinance will still stand for the Council seats whose terms began in 2008 and 2010.
December 30, 2009 12:53:00 PM EST:
The Mayor's pay was still in effect according to the Borough Code available online.
Where will the money come from?
Has anyone written about how the borough is screwing over members of our police department, taking several hundred dollars each month from their paychecks over and above the normal deductions?
Dennis needs to research and write about this borough fiasco that has been going on for months.
I, for one, would be interested in more specific detail regarding the deductions from the police department paychecks. I thought the police were unionized and therefore, this could not occur, Are we talking about police or police department employees??
it has been my understanding the borough started deducting up to 500 dollars a month from each police officer's paychecks to pay for their pensions, which is not in their contract. there has been a legal battle going on for months.
Re: Who's on the hook for the back pay?
Wouldn't council members and the borough council itself carry insurance to protect themselves from a lawsuit?
Who ponies up when the borough breaches a contract (termination of former borough manager) or was that a payoff to go away?
A precedent setting ruling. Puts Phoenixville on the map of Judicial rulings. I don't think that Ken did this to put a hardship on Boro finances,I think it was done out of necessity since Ken pretty much tries to follow the Constitution.
Unfortunately these things cost money and if it was ruled the other way would the Boro have gone after Ken for its legal fees?
I for one think that he did the right thing. Maybe if council had more members who follow the law instead of their heads and hearts it wouldn't cost us taxpayers so much in the end.
"Maybe if council had more members who follow the law instead of their heads and hearts it wouldn't cost us taxpayers so much in the end."
Follow the law then use their heads, listen, do a little homework
then vote. FOR THE RIGHT REASON NOT WHAT THE GANG IS DOING!!!!!!
Way to go KEN
That is the reason for ammendments to the constitution. Why not change what the law says in order to better serve the people. Is that not what was done with women voting or slavery? Seriously, if Ken didn't really care about himself or have anything personally at stake, why not forget the illegality of the decision, look at it as a benefit for Phoenixville residents, and try to change what the law says? Think of all those slaves who went against the law to try to escape slavery in order to change a law to help his fellow "community". I think Ken could have shown a little bit of backbone to help his community.
To January 4, 2010 10:08:00 AM EST.....You're comparing Council's action to eliminating slavery??? Are you kidding??? That is some stretch. If that's your rational to make incompetance acceptable, how about we all just stop obeying laws we don't agree with. Amazing that even when your position has been proven wrong beyond any doubt, you still try to rationalize it. Beyond belief.
While I agree the comparison is a bit fetching (in terms of severity), I do agree with the fact that in order to change laws, they need to be broken (or overlooked).
Post a Comment