The success or failure of a mishmash of court appeals could help define the shape of Lackawanna County's future government.
Everyone who lost in Lackawanna County Court is back for another try in Commonwealth Court to try to influence which questions voters get to answer about restructuring county government on the May 21 ballot. The court is expected to rule soon.
At the moment, based on county court rulings, there will be five questions.
One question, pushed by businessman Chuck Volpe, would decide if voters want to form a commission to study the county's three-commissioner form of government, which would open the possibility of replacing the present form with another.
Separate questions would determine if the county does away with electing four row officers - sheriff, recorder of deeds, register of wills and clerk of judicial records - and lets the commissioners decide what to do with each.
The appeals court will determine whether as few as none and as many as five questions are on the ballot.
One appeal centers on whether a panel of county court judges, acting as the county Board of Elections, had the right to take a single ballot question and split it up into four.
The county commissioners had wanted voters to decide whether to eliminate the four row offices as a group. The county court, acting on a challenge filed by Scranton resident Joseph Pilchesky, decided each row office should have its own question. The court also allowed Mr. Volpe's study commission question to stand.
In their appeal brief, lawyers for the commissioners wrote that the county court made a mistake by splitting up their original question.
"The power and duty of a court is interpretive, not legislative," the father-and-son team of attorneys Joseph A. O'Brien and Michael J. O'Brien, wrote.
The court has "no power to redraw the constitution or to rewrite legislative acts or charters," they wrote. "Thus, though the trial court may rephrase a ballot question, such a change may not constitute a material deviation of the original referendum (ballot) question."
Interestingly, the commissioners' appeal says state law does not forbid the commissioners' row office question from appearing on the same ballot as Mr. Volpe's study commission question.
Mr. Pilchesky did make that argument. He had argued the commissioners' row office question could not appear on the ballot because petitions for Mr. Volpe's study commission question were filed with the county Department of Elections first.
Through her lawyer, attorney Frank J. Tunis Jr., Dickson City resident Andrea Benford had directly questioned the validity of Mr. Volpe's petitions to create the study commission. The court said her objections were not specific enough and ruled against her. She is appealing that ruling.
Mr. Pilchesky never directly challenged Mr. Volpe's petitions, but pushed a challenge that also could have hampered Mr. Volpe's quest. He challenged the validity of nomination papers filed by 38 of the 39 candidates for the commission. That could have knocked the candidates off the ballot and required them to mount write-in campaigns to get chosen for the commission.
The court generally ruled against Mr. Pilchesky's challenge, but required the candidates to file some additional paperwork by April 11 to remain on the ballot.
Mr. Pilchesky is appealing the ruling allowing the commissioners' row office question to remain on the ballot.
So is Taylor resident Kenneth Mickavicz, who is appealing through his lawyer, attorney William T. Jones Jr.
So far, the Commonwealth Court has said it will decide the appeals strictly on written briefs filed by the lawyers rather than hear formal arguments in person. The court has not set a date for making a decision.
Contact the writer: bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com