Livingston v. Doylestown Tp.
| Decision Date | 13 February 1992 |
| Parties | Robert N. LIVINGSTON, Appellant, v. DOYLESTOWN TOWNSHIP, Appellee. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Steven A. Cotlar, for appellant.
Jeffrey P. Garton, for appellee.
Before CRAIG, President Judge, PALLADINO, J., and BARRY, Senior Judge.
Robert N. Livingston (Livingston) appeals an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County (trial court) which affirmed a decision of the Board of Supervisors of Doylestown Township (board) dismissing Livingston from his position as township building inspector.
Livingston was employed by Doylestown Township as township building inspector from 1985 until March 20, 1990, when he was dismissed by the township manager for violation of sections of the Doylestown Township Rules and Regulations for Non-Uniformed Employees (employment rules). The employment rules provide that an employee may appeal his dismissal to the board, and Livingston did so.
As township building inspector, it was Livingston's duty to issue occupancy permits. In doing so he was required to verify that a third party electrical inspector, hired by the person seeking an occupancy permit, had performed a final electrical inspection of the building.
The board found that at the same time that Livingston held the position of township building inspector, he performed final electrical inspections in the township on behalf of Code Inspections, Inc., a private electrical inspections company, and was paid by Code Inspections, Inc. to perform those inspections.
The board concluded that the township manager properly dismissed Livingston, on grounds set forth in the employment rules, for dishonesty, neglect of duty, insubordination and conflict of interest. Livingston appealed to the trial court, which heard the appeal pursuant to section 754(b) of the Local Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b) which provides as follows:
Complete record.--In the event a full and complete record of the proceedings before the local agency was made, the court shall hear the appeal without a jury on the record certified by the agency. After hearing, the court shall affirm the adjudication unless it shall find that the adjudication is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or is not in accordance with law, or that the provisions of Subchapter B of Chapter 5 () have been violated in the proceedings before the agency, or that any finding of fact made by the agency and necessary to support its adjudication is not supported by substantial evidence. If the adjudication is not affirmed, the court may enter any order authorized by 42 Pa.C.S. § 706 ().
The trial court affirmed the board. Our scope of review where, as here, the trial court takes no additional evidence is the same as that of the trial court. Kujawa v. City of Williamsport, 67 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 38, 445 A.2d 1348 (1982).
The issue before this court is whether substantial evidence supports the findings of the board upon which it based its conclusions that Livingston's activities constituted dishonesty, neglect of duty, insubordination and a conflict of interest.
The board found that, shortly after being hired, Livingston had been specifically informed by the township manager that electrical inspections were to be performed by a third party inspection agency or an underwriter, not by the township building inspector who was only to verify that an inspection had been made. Board's opinion at 3. The board found further that in 1987 when Livingston suggested that the township building inspector perform final electrical inspections, the township manager rejected that suggestion and again advised Livingston that those inspections would continue to be performed by a third party. The township manager advised Livingston at that time that the township did not have sufficient liability insurance for any exposure which might be associated with final electrical inspections. Board's opinion at 3. These findings are supported by the testimony of David Jones, the township manager, who testified that he had given Livingston the above information and advice. N.T. at 72-73. His testimony constitutes substantial evidence to support the board's findings.
The board also found that Livingston performed inspections in the township for Code Inspections, Inc., and was paid to do so by that company, at the same time that he was employed as township building inspector, and was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulberry Market, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia, Bd. of License & Inspection Review
...evidence and whether the procedure before the local agency was contrary to statute. 2 Pa.C.S. § 754(b); Livingston v. Doylestown Township, 145 Pa. Cmwlth. 460, 603 A.2d 705 (1992). The first question which Mulberry presents for our review is whether the grandfathering provisions of the Ordi......
-
Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement v. Liberty Soc. of Erie
... ... Our scope of review where, as here, the trial court takes no additional evidence is the same as that of the trial court. Livingston v. Doylestown Township, 145 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 460, 603 A.2d 705 (1992) ... 4 Specifically, Licensee's counsel stipulated as follows: ... Well, ... ...