Attorney Joseph M. Cosgrove will represent Luzerne County Election Board

By Jennifer Learn-Andes [email protected]

Cosgrove

Kingston attorney Joseph M. Cosgrove has agreed to represent Luzerne County’s five-citizen Election Board in legal actions filed by the county over a ballot referendum county council authorized for the Nov. 7 general election, county Chief Solicitor Harry W. Skene said Wednesday.

The election board had expressed concern Tuesday that it had not received outside legal representation because the board must respond to the county’s court filings by 1 p.m. Friday and participate in a Sept. 5 court hearing about the matter.

An attorney with Selingo Guagliardo LLC, Cosgrove is a retired Commonwealth Court judge. He already has worked with the election board handling various election-related legal matters, including a statewide legal challenge over voter notification of mail ballot defects and county litigation over when the district attorney seat should appear on the ballot.

In the current matter, court intervention was authorized by council because the election board did not vote to provide required certification of the referendum at its Aug. 16 meeting. Instead, the board unanimously agreed to send it back to the county law office for revisions, saying the number of changes warrants eight separate questions instead of one.

The amendment, if approved by voters, would revamp the county home rule charter section covering the election board and include changes in the way a fifth seat is structured and filled and the eligibility requirements for all board members. It also vacates the currently seated board if the amendment passes.

The county’s two-part legal action filed Monday asks the county Court of Common Pleas to consider one of two options:

• A mandamus ordering the election board to hold one or more special meetings to frame the question/questions and certify the ballot referendum before the Sept. 11 deadline to finalize the general election ballot.

• A peremptory challenge asking the court to take the matter out of the election board’s hands and convene a panel of judges or electors to properly frame the home rule charter amendment question or questions.

Cosgrove said Wednesday he will work with the election board to comply with the court’s briefing and hearing schedule.

Skene informed county council Wednesday afternoon that Cosgrove will be representing the election board.

“My hope is that with counsel involved maybe the matter will resolve reasonably,” Skene wrote, promising to keep council updated.

Skene retained the law firm Joyce, Carmody and Moran to represent the county and file the action. He said this was necessary because the county Office of Law determined a conflict exists with the election board, partially due to court testimony that will be required by two county assistant solicitors — Shannon Crake Lapsansky and Paula Radick — related to the legal opinions they provided to the board.

County Manager Romilda Crocamo told council attorneys representing the county and election board have both agreed to a reduced rate of $225 per hour.

According to the scheduling orders, county Court of Common Pleas President Judge Michael T. Vough has assigned a panel of three judges to preside over the matter: Lesa S. Gelb, Tina Polachek Gartley and Richard M. Hughes III.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.