Luzerne County Government

March 5, 2010

Court upholds sheriff pay suit

Acting Sheriff Guarnieri had challenged a county-ordered salary cut.

By Jennifer Learn-Andes jandes@timesleader.com
Luzerne County Reporter
Jennifer Learn-Andes on Facebook   |   @TLJenLearnAndes on Twitter

Luzerne County must restore acting Sheriff Charles Guarnieri’s higher deputy salary, county Court of Common Pleas Judge Joseph Cosgrove ruled Thursday.

Guarnieri had filed a lawsuit against county commissioners in October over his $6,787 pay cut.

Guarnieri argued in the suit that minority Commissioner Stephen A. Urban “unilaterally” and “illegally” instructed the county payroll office on Oct. 20 to cut his pay and change his job title from chief deputy to acting sheriff.

Urban said he had an obligation to make the change because the higher pay appeared to violate the state County Code, and he did not want to be accused of breaking the law.

The disagreement stemmed from Guarnieri’s decision to run the office after Mike Savokinas resigned as sheriff Sept. 1 and the state County Code’s conflicting directives on sheriff pay.

One section of the code says deputies who serve as acting row officers must be paid whichever salary is greater, but another section says the deputy sheriff is supposed to receive the sheriff pay.

Guarnieri earned $43,349 as deputy, compared to the $36,562 sheriff’s salary.

His suit argued that the whichever-salary-is-greater portion of the code, known as Section 408, supersedes the part that refers to sheriff pay. The suit says Section 408 was amended in 1990 and “expresses a clear legislative intent to ensure that a deputy placed in the plaintiff’s status does not suffer a salary reduction.”

“It’s just what I said it was in the beginning,” Guarnieri said Thursday night. “I am not the sheriff. I’m the chief deputy acting in the absence of the sheriff.”

Cosgrove determined that the restoration of Guarnieri’s original pay should be retroactive to Sept. 1.

Guarnieri said he was not sure how much back pay he will receive, but he noted that it will include interest.

County Solicitor Vito DeLuca said the county followed the more cautious interpretation of the code because commissioners did not want to release the higher salary and then be advised that they had overpaid.

He said the opinion was “well written” and addressed the conflicting sections of the code.

“We needed to be ordered to pay,” DeLuca said, noting that he did not believe legislators envisioned a situation in which a sheriff would make less than a deputy.

Cosgrove’s opinion pointed to case law that addresses how the intent of legislators must be interpreted. The case law says the presumption should be based on what is “reasonable and effectual, and not what is productive of absurd or anomalous consequences,” the opinion said.

The county acknowledged that its interpretation of the two sections of the code produced an “anomalous” result, which is something the legislature “could not intend,” Cosgrove wrote.

DeLuca said commissioners must decide whether to appeal the ruling.

Urban said he will review the opinion and make a recommendation. If the county does not appeal, Cosgrove’s opinion should be forwarded to legislators so they may decide if the code needs to be amended.

Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.

Tweet	Follow @TLnews

Send Question or Remark to the Publisher