NORTHERN CAMBRIA, Pa. – Northern Cambria Borough Mayor Lisa Tomallo Mays’ request for a preliminary injunction against Northern Cambria Borough Council has been denied in Cambria County court.
The court request arose out of a conflict over the school resource officer position at Northern Cambria School District.
Mays claimed in a 75-page filing that the borough council – Shawn Veneskey, Jason Whited, Donald Ferguson, Albert LeGars, Ronald Nagle, Brandi Wargo and William Toth – had interfered with her authority as chief law enforcement officer “to exercise full charge and control of the chief of police, Derek Stitt, and the police force in their day-to-day operations.”
She had asked for a preliminary injunction, a type of court order, that would prevent the council from interfering with her authority over the Northern Cambria Borough Police Department.
But Cambria County Judge Tamara Bernstein denied the request on Jan. 19, ruling that Mays did not prove the six factors required for a preliminary injunction to be granted – including that an injunction would prevent immediate and irreparable harm and that greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than granting it.
“While (Mays) does have certain statutory authority as mayor over the Northern Cambria Police Department, (Mays) does not have the power to force (the borough council) to agree with every directive she orders to the police department,” the opinion said. “(The council) is not required to back every action (Mays) makes as mayor toward the police force.”
The judge ruled that Mays’ request might actually adversely affect the public interest because of a possible mass resignation from the police department.
“Respondent’s concerns about the resignation of borough police officers and petitioner’s conduct towards officer (Tonya) Marshall show that granting of this preliminary injunction may adversely affect the interests of the public,” Bernstein wrote.
Bernstein declined to comment on the merits of Mays’ petition for a declaratory judgment – a court opinion that would “settle finally, and make certain legal status or rights of the mayor’s statutory authority over the chief of police … and the police force” – because a hearing on that matter is scheduled for Feb. 23.
Mays said she could not discuss the situation because the matter isn’t complete, but added that she was not surprised by the opinion.
Former Cambria County chief public defender Maribeth Schaffer, who now works privately for the Law Office of Thomas M. Dickey in Altoona, filed the injunction request on Mays’ behalf on Jan. 11. The Pittsburgh-based law firm Campbell Durrant P.C. is representing the borough in the case.
Schaffer said she had anticipated a denial of the preliminary injunction request, and was not concerned by the ruling because the hearing on the declaratory judgment petition is still scheduled for February.
Additionally, the matter is scheduled for argument court on Feb. 16.
‘Deteriorating relationship’ detailed
The Northern Cambria Borough police officer who was serving as Northern Cambria School District’s school resource officer (SRO) stepped down in November, creating an issue.
The borough is contractually bound to staff the SRO role, which requires specific training and certification, if the designated officer is not able to fulfill his or her duties.
Mays’ injunction request states that she instructed Marshall to fill the SRO position.
Marshall is not SRO-certified and reportedly refused the assignment.
Mays then instructed Stitt, who is also not SRO-certified, to fill the assignment, but he did not because the assignment is not in his responsibilities.
Stitt told the council at a December meeting that he had worked out an agreement with the school district to modify the contract and to have a patrol officer drive by the schools and do a walk-through when an SRO is unavailable, according to a letter attached to the filing.
Mays claimed that that was a violation of the contract and again instructed Stitt to find an officer for the SRO shift. Bernstein ruled that Stitt’s modification did not violate the original contract.
Ultimately, the situation led to Stitt issuing a resignation letter and Marshall filing a grievance over scheduling.
Marshall wrote in a letter attached to the filing that she considers assignment as an SRO to be discrimination because she’s the only female officer in the department and because other officers showed interest in taking the position.
Marshall’s grievance was denied by the mayor and denied again after a council appeal because another officer had stepped in to take the SRO job. Additionally, Stitt did not resign.
However, the council sent a letter to Mays addressing concerns about her alleged behavior toward Marshall. The letter was attached to the filing.
The council members’ letter described a “deteriorating relationship between (Mays) and members of the borough police department” that “created the risk of significant liability for both (Mays) and the borough.”
The council claimed that the mayor had been “extremely unprofessional” toward Marshall – who was only identified as a female officer in the letter – through “repeated, purposefully rude treatment, inappropriate and unprofessional innuendo, negative implications and statements regarding this officer’s capability and suitability for her position and through generally derisive, disrespectful behavior directed toward her in a variety of contexts.”
It was also claimed that Mays treated Marshall less fairly than her male counterparts, such as through unfavorable scheduling adjustments.
“Borough council does not condone your actions and instead denounces them,” the letter reads.
The letter stated that Mays’ “intrusion in department scheduling is problematic” and that her alleged actions have had a detrimental effect on the borough police department’s operations.
If she does not cease the alleged behavior, the council warned, the members would “be forced to publicly censure (her) at an open meeting.”
The council stated that if she ignored the caution, the borough would not indemnify her in any resulting litigation – and it alleged that her actions, especially toward Marshall, may rise to the level of willful misconduct under state law.
If Mays follows the directive, the group will gladly continue working with her in governing the borough, the letter states.
Council President Shawn Veneskey said he was not surprised to see the judge did not grant the preliminary injunction.
“Personally, I feel the whole thing has been unnecessary,” he said.
Veneskey said that he believes the situation could have been settled before court filings took place and added that the fact that the matter has come to its current state is “disheartening.”
He said the best-case scenario is that the mayor and the borough council work together for an amicable solution.
