Aug 27, 2014 3 min read

An ongoing dispute about eligibility to serve on Canonsburg Borough Council went before a Washington County judge Wednesday.

The parties met for a hearing in which the main legal topics that will decide the case were defined by Judge Michael Lucas.

The case is the result of a lawsuit filed with the county court in February, in which Councilmen John Severine, Timothy Bilsky and Paul Sharkady asked that council’s actions at the Jan. 6 organizational meeting be voided and that the meeting be reconvened.

The lawsuit further protests the process by which council President John Bevec and Vice President Rich Russo were appointed to the board during January’s reorganization session.

The results of the 2013 election showed Severine was elected to both the four-year and two-year terms from the 1st Ward and that Sharkady was elected to both the four-year term for the 3rd Ward and the at-large term.

At the Jan. 6 meeting, newly elected council members were to be sworn in, and a president and vice president were to be chosen.

At the meeting, Severine was called first and asked to choose between the two-year and four-year terms.

He picked the four-year term and was then asked to provide an affidavit of residency to show he had lived in the borough at least a year before the election.

On the advice of the solicitor, Severine was not allowed to be sworn into office or take his seat at the meeting because he did not have his affidavit of residency.

Sharkady also was called upon, and he informed council that he did not have his affidavit of residency.

The solicitor gave an opinion that because Sharkady was re-elected, rather than newly elected, he was not required to provide the affidavit. Sharkardy chose the four-year term from Ward 3, was sworn in and took his seat.

The men’s attorneys, Pittsburgh-based Harlan Stone and William Bresnahan II, agree neither should have been sworn in that evening.

The pair find fault with the fact that Canonsburg Mayor David Rhome was allowed a vote to determine the president and vice president.

They claim Rhome improperly broke the tie on two votes.

Although open to additional arguments, Lucas determined the questions needing answers in the case include whether what was done at the meeting was legal, if it complied with borough code and, if the meeting failed to meet borough code, what could be done to provide relief.

Attorneys for both sides have 10 days to file their arguments with the court.