Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Respondents,
Nominal/Non-adverse Respondents.
NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
i
DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
ii
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Respondents,
Nominal/Non-adverse Respondents.
hereby bring this petition for review in the nature of a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief, and in support thereof, avers as
follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and its
Attorney.
County Controller.
2
upon District Attorney Stedman's statutory and constitutional
authority.
II. JURISDICTION
5. Petitioner files this Petition in the Court's original
§ 761(a)(1).
in Count II because they are related to the claims within the Court's
Commissioners.)
4
V. OTHER INDISPENSABLE PARTIES
5
VI. GENERAL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
A. Asset forfeiture disputes
(1) Act 13 of 2017
15. In 2017, the General Assembly passed Act 13 of 2017
5808. The laws produced by Act 13 were later slightly amended with
17. One of the key aspects of Act 13 was its provision concerning
forfeiture under the law are now "transferred to the custody of the
20. The funds then received by the district attorney, after being
21. The law further provides that those funds are then
22. Not only are the funds quarantined from county authority
consideration after being turned over to the district attorney, they are
also beyond the county's control, with the law stating the district
of the district attorney ... shall be utilized by the district attorney ... for
7
the enforcement of or prevention of a violation of the provisions of The
§ 5803(i).
23. While the district attorney has sole control over the
8
forfeited property or proceeds used in ongoing law enforcement
29. The vehicle was to be used, and has been used, as District
Commissioners' input or approval, and did not lease the vehicle using
9
32. Notwithstanding Act 13's provisions, which give District
Attorney Stedman sole control over the forfeiture funds and which give
authority over the use of such funds, the Lancaster County Board of
right to be involved.
insisted that the Toyota lease agreement should have been subjected to
Section 508 and personal property for county officers and agencies."
investigate all matters concerning the vehicle lease; that is, they intend
10
36. But this is plainly beyond the Commissioners' intentionally
38. Indeed, the General Assembly made clear that the sole event
13 funds back to a district attorney after they are deposited with the
Commissioners' control.
attorney, shall only be "utilized by the district attorney" and the county
11
expenditure of the funds by the district attorney. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§ 5803(g), (i).
12
March 7, 2019. True and accurate copies of the March 5th and March 7th
have remained steadfast and resolute in their belief that they have the
funds[.]" A true and accurate copy of the County Solicitor's March 7th
2019, which expressly states that Act 13 expenditures have always been
subject to the Controller's annual audit, and without any separate audit
attached as Exhibit F.
13
B. Employment disputes
49. The encroachments by the Lancaster County Commissioners
Commissioners are also violating his official capacity rights under The
County Code.
independent county officer, see Pa. Const. Art. IX, § 4, are exclusively
14
(2) Employment disputes between District Attorney
Stedman and Lancaster County Commissioners
53. In February 2019, District Attorney Stedman suspended,
with pay, an assistant district attorney within his office, exercising his
Attorney Stedman.
Attorney Stedman for both the suspension and the reinstatement of the
employee.
that, as with their attempts to audit and investigate his use of Act 13
15
to The County Code, the Commissioners revealed that they had
Stedman's actions. A true and accurate copy of the March 13th Final
that a local news outlet was able to associate the allegations in the
Summary with current and former employees of the District Attorney's
Office.
16
the County, District Attorney Stedman's records contain sensitive
authority of District Attorney Stedman under The County Code and the
involved.
17
66. The purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act is to "settle
and administered." See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,
position that his use of Act 13 funds is not subject to the Lancaster
County Code nor are his expenditure of Act 13 funds subject to audit or
18
70. Accordingly, there exists a clear legal dispute between
that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:
funds;
19
d. permanently enjoin the Lancaster County Board of
e. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
and administered." See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,
20
76. District Attorney Stedman has taken the position that his
§§ 1420, 1620, are not subject to review by the Lancaster County Board
position, insisting they have the power to review the actions of District
County Code.
21
WHEREFORE, Petitioner District Attorney Stedman requests
that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:
and Lehman;
d. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
22
Respectfully submitted,
23
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition
for Review are true and corrected based upon my personal knowledge or
falsification to authorities.
Dated: t5/M4 11
District Attorney Craig Stedman
(01725340;v I )
Exhibit A
TOYOTA( CERt.IPIPP R16OLUTION
3m . AND ikquoto*Ncy Cg.RTIPIOATE
'140 LEAS OR FINANCE
revoked or amended;
CRAi(3 (A),
Resolved that ( 0 c-A-116-S
Abtial.
odc 0
L
)
is duly authorized to lease and/crfinance from
any factory authorized Toyotas Lextis .or Solon autornotive dealership or 'dealerships ("Dealer"), and Dealer's intended
assignee, Toyota 'Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota Lease Trust, or Lens Financial Services ("Lessor/Crediter"), under
. equipment, and. upon such terms and conciltlene as the
one or more leases/instaliment contracts; vehicles, and/ot .
representative(s) hereinafter authorized, In their discretion, May deem necessary and advisable,
Resolved that the Authorized Signature(s) below Isieris, a Sample of sigotores of the authorlled reprdSentOve s as
witnessed. by the duly elected or appointed officials Of A*PAV4.6:\ o,l ,(4 DI 0YR,r1W0f.t (
D t_51-Acc
x
The Lessor/Creditor is hereby authorized to act *Upon these resolutions until written notice of their revocation is delivered
J.- .
a.,..:1 -4,k .tc...., (-.,-. 2-,
orgenIzsti under. laws of the etiato of 'fil.:11141 . , do hereby certify that the.foreoolnQ is a fu 1, true and
corrpot oppyOf.rwilutions pf duly viuthorizod offictoi of LA 10604 :111 e0k:Ar \s- \N:ek" tii\balt 1 ( ..
In witness whereof; I crave hereunto sat my..hand this,. 2- t qday of Ti.,-13,A.,: we,:.,4 i ti, .
.
Name:
Title;
. ,
7176 (Mil)
Exhibit B
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222
KLEINBARD.
March 5, 2019
VIA EMAIL
On behalf of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"), I write
concerning a series of false and defamatory statements you have made related to DA Stedman's
alleged misuse and misappropriation of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use an official work
vehicle. I also write regarding your unauthorized and unlawful attempts to investigate DA
Stedman, a constitutional officer independent from the County Commissioners, for how he has
chosen to spend civil forfeiture funds, his use of an official vehicle, and how he supervises his
employees.
As you are certainly aware, DA Stedman, as the duly elected District Attorney, is an
independent constitutional officer. See Pa. Const. art. IX, § 4. As such, the Lancaster County
Commissioners have no oversight authority over the District Attorney, nor do they have the
ability to initiate an investigation into matters concerning the District Attorney's performance of
his duties or responsibilities. Indeed, as you certainly know, the District Attorney, as an
independent constitutional officer, has exclusive authority over the hiring, firing and supervision
of his office employees. See 16 P.S. § 1620.
As recently as today, you made public statements that you believe DA Stedman may have
been misusing or misappropriating drug forfeiture funds to pay for and use a leased official
vehicle, and that he may have circumvented the County's procurement process in doing so.
These statements are categorically false and must be immediately retracted. DA Stedman's use
of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use an official vehicle was, at all times, an appropriate and
proper use of civil forfeiture proceeds, as provided for by the civil forfeiture statute. See
42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g). Moreover, as you are aware, the lease and use of the official vehicle with
drug forfeiture funds was expressly approved in writing by the County Controller on behalf of
the County. If anything, DA Stedman's use of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use the official
Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 'I: 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 5, 2019
Page 2
vehicle in lieu of County taxpayer funds should be viewed as a net savings for the County and its
taxpayers.
In a similar vein, you also made public statements insinuating that DA Stedman may
have improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to the use of his
official vehicle. As you are well aware, however, DA Stedman self-reported months ago to the
County Controller any alleged overpayments for mileage and the matter was resolved. Indeed,
any alleged overpayments for mileage were rectified, and the County was made whole. As you
know, both the County Solicitor and the County Controller approved of the resolution of that
matter.
Accordingly, this letter serves as a formal demand that you: (1) immediately cease and
desist from making any statements going forward that DA Stedman allegedly misused or
misappropriated drug forfeiture funds to, among other things, lease an official vehicle, or that
DA Stedman improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to his
official vehicle; (2) post a retraction of any such false and defamatory statements previously
made; and (3) immediately cease and desist from seeking to investigate or audit DA Stedman
related to his expenditure of drug forfeiture funds, his lease and/or use of the official vehicle, his
supervisory authority over his employees, or any other matters clearly beyond your purview as
County Commissioners. Your failure to comply with these demands will result in one or more
civil actions being filed against you for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary
damages.
I look forward to your immediate compliance with this cease and desist demand. Please
do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter further.
Mark E. Seiberling
KLEIINBARLE
March 7, 2019
VIA EMAIL
Iwrite in follow-up to my letter of March 5th sent on behalf of Lancaster County District
Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"). It has been more than thirty-six hours since I sent you
my first letter and I have received no response from you, despite receiving correspondence from
the County Solicitor yesterday afternoon that your response would be forthcoming "shortly."
This is obviously very concerning since your false and defamatory statements continue and your
unlawful and illegal investigations have not ceased. As such, unless I receive your promised
response, or some other confirmation that you intend to comply with our cease and desist
demands, we will have no choice but to pursue legal recourse against you.
As I stated in my letter of March your public statements that you believe DA Stedman
5t1i,
may have been misusing or misappropriating drug forfeiture funds to pay for and use a leased
official vehicle are categorically false and must be immediately retracted. Likewise, your
attempts to investigate and/or audit DA Stedman's use of drug forfeiture funds must cease
immediately because it is both an unconstitutional encroachment on the independent authority of
the District Attorney and expressly proscribed by the forfeiture statute itself.
In light of your apparent decision to delay answering my letter and to continue to make
misleading and inaccurate statements on these matters to the public and press, two issues
highlighted in my letter of March 5th warrant additional discussion and explanation.
apparently made no attempts to obtain it, review it, or make it public prior to making your false
and defamatory statements about DA Stedman to the local newspaper.
Moreover, how DA Stedman spends drug forfeiture funds, including whether to use those
funds to lease an official vehicle, is exclusively within the oversight authority and jurisdiction of
the County Controller and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not you. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 5803(j), (k). It must be emphasized that drug forfeiture funds are not taxpayer dollars subject
to review, audit, or oversight by you. Indeed, the forfeiture statute expressly excludes you from
considering drug forfeiture funds in the adoption of the County's budget. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
5803(g) ("The entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds
from future forfeitures in adoption and approval of the budget for the district attorney.").
Additionally, because drug forfeiture funds are initially deposited into the County's operating
fund and then immediately released from the operating fund to the District Attorney "without
restriction" for drug enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, these statutorily
appropriated monies are not subject to the typical County procurement process. See id.
Second, and more basically, there is nothing improper, illegal or untoward about DA
Stedman leasing an official vehicle with drug forfeiture funds. As the chief law enforcement
officer for the County, DA Stedman is on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. This
includes
Task Force. The forfeiture statute expressly provides for the use of these funds for drug
enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, and that is exactly what DA Stedman is
using the funds for in leasing an official vehicle. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g). DA Stedman has
leased his official vehicle for the last three years, and not once over the course of those three
years has either of the two bodies responsible for the oversight of drug forfeiture expenditures-
the County Controller and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General-flagged (or even
questioned) DA Stedman's lease of an official vehicle as somehow being an improper or
inappropriate use of drug forfeiture funds. Tellingly, chief law enforcement officers in other
counties are routinely provided taxpayer -funded vehicles, but, unlike those other counties, DA
Stedman has chosen to use drug forfeiture funds (as opposed to taxpayer funds) to lease his
official vehicle, thereby actually providing a savings to the County taxpayers.
Accordingly, this letter serves as a second demand that you: (1) immediately cease and
desist from making any statements going forward that DA Stedman allegedly misused or
misappropriated drug forfeiture funds to, among other things, lease an official vehicle, or that
DA Stedman improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to his
official vehicle; (2) post a retraction of any such false and defamatory statements previously
made; and (3) immediately cease and desist from seeking to investigate or audit DA Stedman
related to his expenditure of drug forfeiture funds, his lease and/or use of the official vehicle, his
supervisory authority over his employees, or any other matters clearly beyond your purview as
County Commissioners.
look forward to receiving your promised response or some other communication from
I
you regarding these matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss
these matters further.
Mark E. Seiberling
revoked or amended;
CRAi(3 (A),
Resolved that ( 0 c-A-116-S
Abtial.
odc 0
L
)
is duly authorized to lease and/crfinance from
any factory authorized Toyotas Lextis .or Solon autornotive dealership or 'dealerships ("Dealer"), and Dealer's intended
assignee, Toyota 'Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota Lease Trust, or Lens Financial Services ("Lessor/Crediter"), under
. equipment, and. upon such terms and conciltlene as the
one or more leases/instaliment contracts; vehicles, and/ot .
representative(s) hereinafter authorized, In their discretion, May deem necessary and advisable,
Resolved that the Authorized Signature(s) below Isieris, a Sample of sigotores of the authorlled reprdSentOve s as
witnessed. by the duly elected or appointed officials Of A*PAV4.6:\ o,l ,(4 DI 0YR,r1W0f.t (
D t_51-Acc
x
The Lessor/Creditor is hereby authorized to act *Upon these resolutions until written notice of their revocation is delivered
J.- .
a.,..:1 -4,k .tc...., (-.,-. 2-,
orgenIzsti under. laws of the etiato of 'fil.:11141 . , do hereby certify that the.foreoolnQ is a fu 1, true and
corrpot oppyOf.rwilutions pf duly viuthorizod offictoi of LA 10604 :111 e0k:Ar \s- \N:ek" tii\balt 1 ( ..
In witness whereof; I crave hereunto sat my..hand this,. 2- t qday of Ti.,-13,A.,: we,:.,4 i ti, .
.
Name:
Title;
. ,
7176 (Mil)
Exhibit D
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222
KLEINBARD,
March 7, 2019
VIA EMAIL
On behalf of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"), I write
to respond to your factually misinformed and legally misplaced letter of today, which you sent
on behalf of the Lancaster County Commissioners in response to my initial letter of March 5th.
Specifically, I write to address the following glaring legal errors and factual omissions in your
response.
First, you mischaracterize and misrepresent my March 5th letter as some type of "attempt
to intimidate and prevent [the Lancaster County Commissioners] from doing their duty on behalf
of the citizens of Lancaster County." Ltr. at 1. But, in reality, my letter does nothing of the sort.
Rather, my letter seeks to prevent the County Commissioners from violating both the
Pennsylvania Constitution and clear statutory law. I encourage the Commissioners to continue
performing their duties on behalf of the citizens of Lancaster County. However, as you know, the
Commissioners' oversight powers and statutory authority are not limitless and must be
appropriately checked when they engage in an overreach.
Second, you incorrectly claim that "[s]ource of funds is not a work around for the Board
of Commissioners' contracting authority." Ltr. at 1. But, in reality, yes it is. As I stated in my
follow-up letter sent today-which your response wholly ignores-drug forfeiture funds are not
taxpayer dollars subject to the County Commissioners' review, audit, or oversight. See 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 5803(g), (j), (k). Rather, drug forfeiture funds (as opposed to County taxpayer funds)
are exclusively within the oversight review and jurisdiction of the County Controller and the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not the County Commissioners. See id. Moreover,
because drug forfeiture funds are initially deposited into the County's operating fund and then
immediately released from the operating fund to the District Attorney "without restriction" for
drug enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, these statutorily appropriated monies
are not subject to the typical County procurement process. See id.
Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street., 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 1': 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 7, 2019
Page 2
Fourth, you misleadingly rely on non-precedential rulings from the Pennsylvania Office
of Open Records and a Pennsylvania trial court to support your claim that "the release of drug
forfeiture financial information" is "appropriate, and in fact, required." Ltr. at 3. However, as
you certainly know, those other rulings have no binding authority in the "open records case now
before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County." Id. As such, until the Lancaster County
Court rules on the open records case, disclosure of any drug forfeiture financial information
would be imprudent and, in our review, contrary to the express provisions of the civil forfeiture
statute. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5803(g), (j), (k).
Fifth, and finally, you erroneously claim that I am somehow representing DA Stedman in
his personal capacity. See Ltr. at 3. But, in fact, I am not. As I stated from the outset, I am
representing DA Stedman in his official capacity as Lancaster County District Attorney. Any
damages we are seeking are solely in this official capacity and not personal to him. As such, if
DA Stedman chooses to use taxpayer or drug forfeiture funds to pay for my representation that is
his prerogative and not yours. Indeed, any attempt by the County Commissioners to somehow
impede or direct how DA Stedman uses his official office funds would again be another illegal
and unlawful overreach similar to the overreaches that precipitated my retention in the first
place.
Accordingly, I ask that you reconsider the overly defensive and unproductive positions
you have taken in your response and, instead, choose to comply with my initial cease and desist
demands. Otherwise, we will have no choice but to file a lawsuit against the County
Commissioners no later than next week.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss these matters further.
Mark E. Seiberling
March 7, 2019
Page 3
Controller on behalf of the County" or that this claim was known by the
Commissioners. Indeed, it wasn't until Tuesday of this week when the
District Attorney's Facebook page posted a Resolution signed by County
Controller Brian Hurter that we knew of any documentation associated with
the vehicle lease. Controller Hurter has indicated that this Resolution and the
vehicle lease are not held in his office. Neither are within the County's
purchasing department and newspaper reports indicate that your client will
not produce the lease or identify who signed it.
Your cease and desist notice was sent within a week of the Board of
Commissioners filing its Petition to Intervene in the open records case now
before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. Although Mr.
Mark E. Seiberling
March 7, 2019
Page 3
Stedman claims that the release of drug forfeiture financial information is not
permitted by law, both the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records and another
Pennsylvania Court have found that release is appropriate, and in fact,
required. This situation demonstrates the need for the release of drug
forfeiture financial records (subject to redaction for non -disclosure of
sensitive law enforcement information) for transparency and good
government as advocated in our Petition.
istina L. Hausner
Controller's Office Statement Re: Drug Task Force Expenditures and Procedures
The Drug Task Force (DTF) and the expenses related to the DTF have been handled at the
discretion of the Lancaster County District Attorney (DA) and DTF since the inception of
the DTF. At the end of the DTF's fiscal year (June 30th) the Controller's office is responsible
to audit the DTF and report the information to the State Attorney General's office which
has been done every year. During our audit we have access to any information needed
from the DTF to complete our audit. Any questions that we have are then asked to the
DTF and they are always cooperative with answering our questions and providing any
additional explanation or information that is needed.
Certificate to Lease of Finance" from Toyota and confirm that there was money in the
account. My belief was that this document states that Craig Stedman was the District
Attorney for Lancaster County and that he has the ability to act in the authority of that
position. This document is not a lease agreement. My office does not have a copy of the
lease agreement for the 2016 Toyota Highlander. We are unaware who signed the actual
agreement or who would be liable in the event of default. The Controller does not have
the authority to sign off on leases for the county or DTF. When signed this document, it
I
was with the understanding that there was a vehicle being leased for the DTF fleet of
vehicles and not for any specific individual. The reason for leasing the vehicle, opposed
to purchasing as had been done previously, was because it was deemed to be favorable
compared to purchasing a vehicle and it would allow the DTF to keep the fleet more
updated. In January 2016, the county did not have a full-time county solicitor, reviewed
I
this document with the Controller's office solicitor and based on follow-up questions we
learned that the vehicle to be leased was a 2016 Toyota Highlander. Based on information
that received, was under the impression that there were other individuals that were
I I
aware of this lease. The Commissioner's office is aware of this and can address as they
deem appropriate. The DTF vehicle fleet is insured under the county's insurance policy.
A listing of all vehicles covered under the county's policy is maintained by the
Commissioner's office. This list includes the 2016 Toyota Highlander under DTF and notes
that there is a three-year lease on the vehicle.
As noted in the first paragraph, the expenditures of DTF funds have always been made at
the discretion of the DA. Forfeiture of Assets Act states under Section 5808(g) that "Cash
or proceeds of property, subject to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the
custody of the District Attorney under subsection (f) shall be placed in the operating fund
of the county in which the District Attorney is elected. The appropriate county authority
shall immediately release from the operating fund, without restriction, a like amount for
the use of the District Attorney for the enforcement of or prevention of a violation of the
provisions of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The funds shall
be maintained in an account or accounts separate from other revenues of the office. The
entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds from
future forfeitures in adoption and approval of the budget for the District Attorney." As
noted, the DTF funds should not be anticipated "in adoption and approval of the budget
for the District Attorney."
During our audit we verify that funds are spent in accordance with the Forfeiture of Assets
Act. Section 5807 states "Property, money or other things of value received by State law
enforcement authority under any of the following laws may not be used for contributions
to political campaigns, expenses related to judicial trainings or the purchase of alcoholic
beverages." There are no further restrictions on the use of funds. As noted above in
Section 5808(g) states the funds should be used "for the enforcement of or prevention of
a violation of the provisions of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act."
During our audit we verify that the expenditures are spent in accordance with the
guidelines and that they are used for the enforcement and prevention of drugs.
As noted several times, the expenditure of DTF funds in Lancaster County were handled
at the discretion of the DA and this has been the case since the inception of the DTF. This
is the first time since took office in November 2013 where this practice has been
I
questioned. Based on discussion with my team am not aware of this practice ever being
I
questioned. The normal procurement process for the county would typically run through
purchasing; however, with the DTF funds being handled at the discretion of the DA, the
normal county procurement process has never been followed for the DTF. The Toyota
Highlander is the only new lease that am aware of since took office. There are two
I I
building leases through the DTF which have been in place since 2002 and 2004. The
monthly rent expenses related to these leases have never been questioned and like the
Highlander lease the Controller's office does not maintain these leases. Since 2000 (as
far back as we can pull the records), there have been 19 vehicles purchased using DTF
funds and none of these vehicles have been handled through the county's procurement
process. There are also expenditures on an annual basis that are over the bid threshold
which are handled and have always been handled at the discretion of the DA. To my
knowledge none of these expenditures have ever been questioned. When this question
came up two weeks ago, reached out to the Controller's Association to see how other
I
counties handle the procurement process for DTF funds and the response was mixed.
There are some counties where the expenditure of DTF funds are under the discretion of
the DA, as Lancaster County has handled them, and other counties where the funds are
handled through the county procurement process.
As noted previously, the Forfeiture of Assets Act states "Cash or proceeds of property,
subject to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the custody of the District
Attorney under subsection (f) shall be placed in the operating fund of the county in which
the District Attorney is elected." Any proceeds that are received by the DA are placed
into the Lancaster County General Fund bank account (the operating bank account of the
county). Any payments that are made from the General Fund bank account, which would
include DTF disbursements, are approved by the Commissioners, Controller, and
Treasurer as part of the weekly accounts payable process. The weekly check register that
is provided includes information about the payments that are being made that week.
it with my team so that we could decide how to proceed and handle the process in the
same way as any previous similar situations. He offered an explanation and followed up
that explanation with memo which we felt was a reasonable explanation. The error that
a
DA Stedman noted was that he used both county and personal vehicles and he handled
the mileage for both of them the same. The county's expense form is set up in a way
where the employees drop in the mileage and the amount is automatically calculated.
When he brought this to our attention we went back and reviewed his expense reports
for the period of time he thought was an issue. Given that the issue was over a three-
year period we worked with DA Stedman to determine which expenditures were related
to his personal vehicles and which ones were related to the county vehicle. We then used
the mileage reimbursement rate, the vehicle's miles per gallon, and an average gas price
to do the calculation. Because of the period of time we were looking at we felt this was
a reasonable solution to the issue. At the end of the review we met with DA Stedman and
he wrote a check to the county for the determined amount. We held the check until had I
a chance to review the proposed resolution with the county solicitor. Once we reviewed
it and no issues were noted we deposited the check. The Controller's office handled this
situation just like we would in any other situation of this nature. We review the available
information to determine what we feel is the best way to handle the process and come
to a resolution. Once we determine we have the information we need to come up with a
resolution, we present it to the necessary parties. This was a very unique situation
because there are not many, if any, county employees that would be using both personal
and county vehicles in the way which DA Stedman uses them. During 2016 the
Controller's office completed a travel expense audit and DA Stedman was one of the
employees selected during that audit. During that audit there were no mileage
calculation concerns noted for DA Stedman.
Exhibit G
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222
KLEIINBARIL
March 7, 2019
VIA EMAIL
As you know, I represent Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA
Stedman"). I write again on behalf of DA Stedman to address a separate but related investigation
you are apparently undertaking of DA Stedman concerning his decision to take personnel action
against an office employee. As with your attempt to illegally and unlawfully investigate DA
Stedman with respect to his leasing of an official vehicle with drug forfeiture funds, your attempt
to apparently investigate DA Stedman related to his employment decisions is equally illegal and
unlawful for at least two reasons.
First, and most importantly, DA Stedman, as the duly elected District Attorney and an
independent constitutional officer, has exclusive and plenary authority over the hiring, firing and
supervision of his office employees. See Pa. Const. art. IX, § 4; 16 P.S. §§ 1420, 1620. As such,
you are constitutionally and statutorily prohibited from investigating DA Stedman about
personnel decisions made, or personnel actions taken, related to his office employees.
Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 7, 2019
Page 2
Beyond the clear legal bars to your attempted investigation of this personnel matter, it is
also worth noting that, factually, your investigation is without merit. As you know, this personnel
matter has been fully resolved by DA Stedman, and no formal grievance or complaint is pending.
The employee has returned to work and all parties are jointly committed to moving forward for
the good of the office. And, it must be emphasized, your own Human Resources Department
agreed with, and approved of, the personnel action taken in this matter.
Accordingly, this letter serves as a formal demand that you immediately cease and desist
from seeking to investigate DA Stedman related to his decision to take personnel action against
an office employee. Your failure to comply with this demand will result in us having to pursue
declaratory and injunctive relief against you to protect DA Stedman's constitutional powers and
statutory authority.
I look forward to your immediate compliance with this cease and desist demand. Please
do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter further.
Mark E. Seiberling
{01722311;v2 }
Exhibit H
Human Resources
150 North Queen Street
Suite #312
Human Resources Complaints - Final Summary Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: 717-299-8310
March 13, 2019 www.co.lancaster.pa.us
County Commissioners
Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman
Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman The Lancaster County Office of Human Resources recently completed review of
a
Craig E. Lehman, Commissioner two complaints regarding related events from the Office of the District Attorney.
The first complaint alleged that an employee was put on paid administrative
leave and the motivation for doing so was related to political campaign activities
which is a violation of County policy. This complaint is substantiated. The District
Attorney cited an internal office policy as justification. The District Attorney
office policy requires an employee who is a candidate for public office to resign
upon the announcement of the candidacy, but also states "The District Attorney
may modify this requirement in his sole discretion." This Policy allows the
District Attorney to determine those employees who can retain employment and
those who must resign when running for public office. This explains the District
Attorney's belief of the appropriateness of "giving permission" to his employees
to run for office. This internal policy conflicts with Lancaster County policy which
requires separation of County functions and political activities.
The second complaint resulted from an employee in the District Attorney's office
attending a meeting of County Republican leaders with a file in his possession
relating to a co-worker running for political office. This complaint is
substantiated. The employee used a confidential file, which by his own
admission contained information regarding a personnel matter relating to a co-
worker, for political purposes. These actions violate County policies.