Sep 23, 2021 3 min read

A Washington County judge has dismissed a request from three Donegal Township supervisors to stop the downsizing of the municipality’s board that could result in some of them being ousted from office during the upcoming general election.

Judge Michael Lucas wrote in his order docketed Monday that the municipality is following the correct procedures required by the state’s Second Class Township Code with how and when the board should be downsized when approved during an election referendum.

He said the state code “authorized” the township’s voters to pass the referendum when they overwhelmingly voted last November to downsize the board from five supervisors to three.

That decision put three supervisors seats up for grabs this year despite three of the five members still having remaining years left on their terms. Supervisors Richard Martin, Richard Fidler and Tammi M. Iams filed the lawsuit in April trying to block the election from taking place or stopping elections officials from tallying the votes after the May primary. Lucas denied that motion, prompting the three supervisors to amend their lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the state Legislature’s writing of the Second Class Township Code.

Martin and Fidler lost in the Republican primary and won’t appear on the general election ballot, while Iams narrowly won a position on the Democratic ballot. Kathleen W. Croft and Edward Shingle Jr., the two other supervisors who are also defendants in the lawsuit, are both on the ballot in the upcoming election.

While Martin, Fidler and Iams argued through their attorney during oral arguments on Sept. 14 that the form of government wasn’t changing despite being downsized, Lucas disagreed, writing that a difference in the number of voting members on the board does constitute a different government. The township had increased the board from three supervisors to five just a few years earlier.

“In practical terms, a change in the number of persons comprising a municipality’s governing board is significant,” Lucas wrote.

Lucas also cited state appellate court rulings that have “rejected officeholder attempts to permit them to ‘run out their term’ despite voter referendums that significantly altered the form of local government and abolished certain elected offices.”

Thomas Breth, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said he had not seen the order as of Wednesday afternoon, but expected they would appeal the decision to Commonwealth Court. Bernie Matthews, who is representing Croft and Shingle, could not be reached for comment.