Former Tyrone Borough manager Nathan George’s attorney filed an action against the borough and borough council on Friday afternoon.
“An action was commenced against the borough and individual borough council members,” attorney Joseph Cavrich told The Daily Herald, minutes after the documents were filed.
He verified papers were filed around 3:30 p.m., Friday afternoon at the Prothonatary’s office in Hollidaysburg. Cavrich said the action was taken “regrettably.”
Shortly before the action was taken, Cavrich in a separate earlier phone conversation said, “We are very disappointed. The borough has completely ignored efforts to resolve the matter.”
He was referring to a dispute between the former manager and the borough stemming from George’s termination as a borough employee.
George had contended he was dismissed in what he claims was an official action taken by the borough during an executive session on June 8. The borough voted to oust George with cause, effective immediately at a special public meeting on June 11.
Teri Henning, a media counsel from the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association had said previously, such an action in an executive session, if it actually did occur would be considered, “a clear violation of the Sunshine Laws.”
George had also contended the borough violated its home rule charter by not allowing him to exercise his supervisory duties granted to him under it. He’s also claimed he met with resistance in applying other duties granted to him under the charter and his dismissal was “retaliatory.”
Cavrich explained one reason the decision was made to file the action was a lack of response from solicitor Larry Clapper, as well as a lack of response from a special counsel the borough retained regarding some aspects of the issue.
Cavrich indicated he had sent a letter dated June 18 to solicitor Clapper and had received no response. Cavrich further stated he was attempting to work with the Pittsburgh-based special counsel regarding certain records requests he was attempting to make with the borough.
Cavrich did not specify exactly what documents or information he was trying to obtain from the borough.
Previously, Cavrich had said he believed there were other issues involved beyond Sunshine Law and home rule charter violations.
Solicitor Clapper was contacted by The Daily Herald after it learned about the legal filing from Cavrich.
“This is the first I knew of it,” said Clapper. “I need to review it first and I can’t make any further comment about it (the action). I’m sure the borough will respond appropriately.”
Clapper also verified he had received a letter from Cavrich indicating the attorney wanted to be advised if the borough was interested in engaging in discussions regarding the issues.
Clapper said the letter was dated June 18, received in his office on Saturday, June 19, and he reviewed it no sooner than Monday, June 21. Clapper stated the letter from Cavrich indicated he was hoping to have a response from Clapper no later than the following Tuesday. Clapper further indicated this left unclear whether Cavrich meant Tuesday, June 22 or Tuesday, June 29.
“This (action) is not a shock,” said Clapper.
“You really can’t expect a solicitor for a municipality to respond within a day,” said Clapper regarding Cavrich’s letter.
Clapper explained dealing with a municipality is not the same as providing counsel to an individual. He indicated, in general terms, a solicitor for a municipality often needs to check with multiple parties and consider privacy issues before a response can be made.
“We prefer to handle things through the courts versus the newspaper,” said Clapper.
He noted an individual may be in a position to make certain statements; whereas a municipality, for sound legal and privacy issues, would not be able to do the same.
In a recent ‘Letter to the Editor,’ Mayor Patricia Stoner had indicated the borough must, based on legal advice, refrain from commenting or responding to specifics. But, she indicated more of the borough’s position regarding George’s dismissal could come to light if legal action was pursued by George. At the time, George and his attorney had not filed any such actions.
Cavrich would not detail specifics of the action that was filed Friday afternoon. He said he might have further comment in the near future.
Attempts were made to reach the Prothonatary’s office for further information about the action prior to its closing time Friday. However, the court administrator’s office said they were having phone trouble. Attempts to transfer the call and then direct calls to reach the Prothonatary’s office failed.
A message was left with the Blair County Court Administrator’s office requesting a call back from the Prothonatary’s office. The call was not returned Friday afternoon.
