Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie
| Decision Date | 03 January 2013 |
| Citation | 63 A.3d 461 |
| Parties | Rickie HOFFMAN, Mayor of the Borough of Macungie v. The BOROUGH OF MACUNGIE, Borough Council of the Borough of Macungie and Edward Harry, Jr. and James B. Martin, District Attorney of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Appeal of James B. Martin, District Attorney of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. Rickie Hoffman, Mayor of the Borough of Macungie, Appellant v. The Borough of Macungie, Borough Council of the Borough of Macungie, Edward Harry, Jr., and Macungie Borough Police Officers Association and James B. Martin, District Attorney of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Heather F. Gallagher, Senior Deputy District Attorney, and James B. Martin, District Attorney, Allentown, for designated Appellant James B. Martin.
Christopher J. Cook, Harrisburg, for appellees The Borough of Macungie and Macungie Borough Police Officers Association.
Jeffrey R. Dimmich, Orefield, for appellee Rickie Hoffman.
Jeffrey S. Stewart, Allentown, for appellees The Borough of Macungie, Borough Council of the Borough of Macungie and Edward Harry, Jr.
BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, President Judge, and McGINLEY, Judge, and LEADBETTER, Judge, and COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge, and McCULLOUGH, Judge, and COVEY, Judge.
OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON.
In these over-litigated cross-appeals raising numerous issues, we consider several questions concerning the division of authority within the local government of the Borough of Macungie (Macungie). Specifically, we address the separation of powers between Macungie's mayor, its borough council (Borough Council), and the District Attorney of Lehigh County.
In his appeal, the District Attorney, James B. Martin (D.A. Martin), appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County (trial court) declaring Macungie's mayor, Rickie Hoffman (Mayor Hoffman), to be Macungie's chief law enforcement officer, and granting him full access to information the Macungie Police Department retains pursuant to the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA).1 D.A. Martin contends the trial court erred in interpreting the mayor's authority too broadly, and, in doing so, it potentially jeopardized his future operations and the protection of sensitive information.
By cross-appeal, Mayor Hoffman raises many issues. He first asserts the trial court did not define his authority under the Borough Code (Code) 2 broadly enough. Specifically, Mayor Hoffman contendsthe trial court erred in determining the distribution of authority between Borough Council and his office over police officer discipline. Moreover, Mayor Hoffman argues Macungie Borough Ordinance (Ordinance) § 73–2 and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Macungie and Macungie Borough Police Officers Association (Police Officers Association) conflict with his authority to manage the police force. Additionally, Mayor Hoffman asserts the trial court erred by enjoining him from interfering with D.A. Martin's operations and by denying him counsel fees. Upon review, we affirm most aspects of the trial court's decision, reverse in part, and remand for an initial determination as to a discrete issue involving attorney's fees only.
Unfortunately, it is undisputed that several dysfunctional relationships within Macungie's local government underlie this litigation. Although the genesis of this distrust and intractable behavior is not fully clear from the record, the following fairly summarizes the specific circumstances that led to this appeal.
In 2010, Macungie's residents elected Mayor Hoffman and a new Borough Council. Sometime thereafter, Mayor Hoffman asked Edward Harry Jr., Macungie's chief of police (Chief Harry), for the Police Department work schedules and a key to the police station. Chief Harry denied this request. In response, Mayor Hoffman suspended him for 10 days without pay for insubordination. Thereafter, the acting officer-in-charge sought D.A. Martin's guidance. Ultimately, the Police Department maintained its decision to decline Mayor Hoffman's request on the grounds that it needed to keep information within the police station secure.
As a result of this tension, Macungie's borough solicitor (Solicitor) issued a memorandum to Borough Council which addressed whether the mayor is entitled to access the police station and view Police Department work schedules and investigative files, and what role the mayor has in setting the work schedules. At that time, the Solicitor advised Borough Council that Mayor Hoffman is entitled to view the requested files and to have a key to the police station. The Solicitor further advised Borough Council that scheduling the police officers is subject to the CBA, not to Mayor Hoffman's control. As to the security of information, the Solicitor advised Borough Council, based on Greene v. Prospect Park Borough Council, 46 Pa. D. & C.3d 558 (C.P. Delaware 1987), the mayor is not an outsider to the police department; thus, CHRIA does not restrict his access to Police Department information. Furthermore, the Solicitor opined Ordinance § 73–2 requires Mayor Hoffman to direct his orders to the police force through Chief Harry.
At a regularly scheduled meeting, Borough Council overturned and expunged Chief Harry's suspension and issued him back pay for the entire term of his suspension. At that time, Borough Council also directed Chief Harry to provide Mayor Hoffman with full access to the Police Department work schedules.
Thereafter, the Police Officers Association filed suit to enjoin Mayor Hoffman from obtaining the work schedules and attempting to modify the officers' schedules. In response, Mayor Hoffman filed a separate action against Macungie, Borough Council, and Chief Harry (Borough Defendants) seeking to be declared Macungie's chief law enforcement officer and to enjoin action to the contrary. At that time, without objection, D.A. Martin intervened in opposition to Mayor Hoffman.
The trial court consolidated these two actions. After a conference before the trial court, the parties agreed to a temporary settlement. Unfortunately, the parties were unable to cooperate under the settlement. Mayor Hoffman filed an amended complaint, which included all of the original parties. At the close of pleadings, Mayor Hoffman filed a motion for summary judgment, and Borough Defendants, D.A. Martin, and the Police Officers Association each filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
In sum, Mayor Hoffman asserted that pursuant to the Code, he is entitled to full control over the chief of police and the police force. As such, he is the head of the police force; therefore, he was Macungie's chief law enforcement officer. He also argued he was entitled to unfettered access to the police station and its files. Furthermore, he asserted Ordinance § 73–2 and the CBA should not be interpreted to limit the mayor's authority. Additionally, Mayor Hoffman argued his decision to suspend Chief Harry for 10 days cannot be overturned by Borough Council. In conclusion, Mayor Hoffman requested a declaration of his authority, an injunction protecting his use of that authority, and the payment of all the legal fees and costs he incurred.
In response, Borough Defendants' argument concerned who had authority to set the police officers' work schedules, and whether Borough Council acted within its authority in reinstating Chief Harry with back pay. To that end, Borough Defendants argued the Code grants Borough Council the authority to set the police officers' schedules. Thus, Borough Council could properly negotiate away such authority under the CBA. The Police Officers Association maintained a similar position.
Moreover, Borough Council argued that because the Code allows it to reinstate a suspended officer “with pay,” it provides for the complete payment of back pay. See Section 1124 of the Code, 53 P.S. § 46124. Furthermore, Borough Defendants asserted Ordinance § 73–2 required the mayor to control the police force by issuing orders to the chief of police and not by directly communicating with subordinate officers. As to Mayor Hoffman's contentions concerning access to information, Borough Defendants rested on D.A. Martin's arguments.
D.A. Martin presented a narrow issue when intervening: he intervened to prevent Mayor Hoffman from accessing protected information under CHRIA. D.A. Martin argued that a mayor is not the chief law enforcement officer of his borough, and that such an interpretation conflicts with the Municipal Police Jurisdiction Act (MPJA) 3 and Commonwealth Attorneys Act.4
Upon considering the motions, the trial court granted them in part and denied them in part. As to Mayor Hoffman's claims against Borough Defendants, counts I and II of his amended complaint, the trial court granted Mayor Hoffman judgment in part. Specifically, the trial court determined Mayor Hoffman to be Macungie's chief law enforcement officer. As such, the trial court determined Mayor Hoffman is entitled to unrestricted access to the Police Department station and files. The trial court also granted Borough Defendants partial judgment in determining Borough Council had authority to reinstate Chief Harry with back pay.
As to Mayor Hoffman's claim against Borough Defendants and the Police Officers Association, count III, the trial court nominally found in favor of the Defendants. Specifically, the trial court determined neither Ordinance § 73–2 nor the CBA infringed on Mayor Hoffman's statutory authority. To that end, the trial court determined Ordinance § 73–2 and the CBA did not conflict with the Code and ordered Borough Defendants to act accordingly.
In considering Mayor Hoffman's claim against Borough Defendants and D.A. Martin, count IV, the trial court found in favor of Mayor Hoffman and concluded that CHRIA did not interfere with the mayor's ability to access police files. Additionally, the trial court imposed reciprocal injunctions against D.A. Martin...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- In re Senior Health Ins. Co. of Pa. in Rehab.
-
Bilal v. Colwyn Borough
...Pennsylvania law suggests that Borough Councilmembers maintain no direct control over police activities. See Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie, 63 A.3d 461, 469 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013) ("[A] borough council may organize a police force, but the mayor controls its day-to-day operations."). Althoug......
- Consedine v. Penn Treaty Network Am. Ins. Co.
-
Bird v. Borough of Moosic, CIVIL NO. 3:18-CV-2289
...manner in which the chief of police and the police force perform the duties of their rank"). See generally Hoffman v. Borough of Macungie, 63 A.3d 461, 469-70 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2013). Alternatively, "[a] municipality may be held liable under § 1983 for failure to train, monitor, or supervise,......