Stilp, et al. v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Part 1

Stilp, et al. v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania – Part 1

In the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Middle District


Gene Stilp, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 151 MAP 2005
:
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, EDWARD G. :
RENDELL, GOVERNOR OF THE :
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, ROBERT P. :
CASEY, JR., TREASURER OF THE :
COMMONWEALTH OF :
PENNSYLVANIA, ROBERT C. :
JUBILIER, PRESIDENT PRO :
TEMPORE OF THE PENNSYLVANIA :
SENATE, JOHN M. PERZEL, :
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF :
REPRESENTATIVES, :
Respondents :

Brief of Amici Curiae
TIMOTHY W. POTTS, RUSS DIAMOND, ON BEHALF OF
PA Clean Sweep, INC. AND ERIC EPSTEIN,
COORDINATOR, ON BEHALF OF ROCK THE CAPITAL .ORG

Appeal from Commonwealth Court Order Dated November 30, 2005 at No.404 M.D. 2005

Mark P. Widoff, Esq.
Attorney I.D. No. 12660
Attorney for Amici Curiae
Timothy W. Potts
Russ Diamond, on Behalf of
PA Clean Sweep, Inc.
Eric Epstein, Coordinator,
On Behalf of RocktheCapital.org
1141 Country Club Rd.
Camp Hill, PA 17110
717-439-6397
January 31, 2006 717-303-2076 (fax)
STATEMENT OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici file this brief in support of the position of Petitioner.
Amicus Timothy W. Potts is a resident of Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. He is an elected director of the Carlisle Area School District and a co-founder of Democracy Rising PA, a coalition of organizations seeking to raise the standards of integrity in state government. He is a former member of the board of directors of Common Cause PA and formally served for seven years (1990-97) as press secretary and director of communications for the PA House Democratic Caucus, in addition to other significant positions in the executive branch of state government. Mr. Pott’s interest in this case, is that of a citizen, taxpayer and public official, who is concerned that a ruling in favor of the Defendants will deprive citizens of their constitutional rights of participation in this and future legislative enactments, undermine citizen confidence in the rule of law, and unnecessarily damage public respect for those who serve in public office.
PACleanSweep, Inc. is a non-profit corporation registered with the Pennsylvania Department of State. Operation Clean Sweep, an effort by PACleanSweep, Inc., is a nonpartisan effort to return responsible government to the citizens of Pennsylvania, and to restore honor, dignity and integrity to the halls of our state Capitol. PACleanSweep, Inc., believes that responsible government must begin with restoring compliance with the clear and unambiguous requirements of Article III of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which provide for fundamental due process in the drafting, deliberation and enactment of the laws of the Commonwealth.
Eric Epstein, Coordinator of RocktheCapital.org, has been authorized by the board of directors to join as Amici in support of Petitioner. RocktheCapital.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan voter education organization that was established in response to what the members considered an improper and illegal compensation package, including, in particular, “unvouchered expenses.” The organization is deeply concerned that, depending on the outcome of the instant matter, improper expenditures like “unvouchered expenses” will continue.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The case before this Court was filed below by Petitioner as a Complaint in Mandamus and Bill of Equity in the Commonwealth Court at 404 M.D. 2005 and was subsequently amended. The Complaint challenged the Act of July 7, 2005, P.L. 201, No. 44(“Act 44”).
After the repeal of Act 44, on November 16, 2005 by Act 2005-72, the Commonwealth Court, in a Memorandum Opinion dated November 30, 2005, by Senior Judge James R. Kelley, dismissed Petitioner’s action as moot. However, by Order dated December 22, 2005, this Honorable Court granted in part the Application for Extraordinary Relief and took plenary jurisdiction over this matter. In its order, this Court directed the parties to address five distinct issues for briefs and oral argument and to list this case for argument at the same session with Herron v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al, No. 163 EM 2005.
H.B. 1521, P.N. 1865 introduced on May 3, 2005, eventually to become Act 44, contained a two-page proposed act to be known as the “Executive Branch Official Compensation Act." This two-page bill dealt with one subject, i.e., forbidding executive branch compensation greater than the Governor (R. 216a). The bill eventually passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 157-40 on June 8, 2005 (R. 181a). H.B. 1521, P.N. 2561, was amended in the Senate to make its provisions apply only to Executive branch officials elected or appointed after November 1, 2006 (R. 217a). In its amended form, it passed the Senate by a vote of 28-22 on July 6, 2005 (R. 181a).

In the very early hours of July 7, 2005, a conference committee report was presented both to the House and to the Senate as H.B. 1521, P.N. 2570. The Conference Committee Report was 22 pages in length and did not deal with reconciling the differences between the House and Senate versions of H.B. 1521 (R.218a – 228a). Instead, the report consisted of entirely new provisions consisting of numerous amendments to Title 42 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, all dealing with compensation matters for various public officials in the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches, providing for increases in such compensation, including a system of unvouchered expenses (R. 218a – 222a). The system of unvouchered expenses, inter alia, does not reduce reimbursement for documented expenses actually incurred by legislators in the course of carrying out their official business, nor does it replace these actually incurred expenses, but simply provides an increase in compensation exactly equal to the salary increases scheduled to take effect upon the expiration of the terms of legislators presently serving in the General Assembly (R. 224a -225a). This Conference Committee Report was adopted in the House, without debate, by a vote of 119-79, and in the Senate, without substantive debate, by a vote of 27-23 (R. 181a).



STATEMENT OF THE QUESTIONS INVOLVED

1. Does Petitioner Stilp have standing to bring an action challenging the constitutionality of the Act of July 7, 2005, P.L. 201, No. 44 (“Act 44”)?

(Not answered below).
(Suggested answer in the affirmative).

2. Did the General Assembly’s adoption of Act 44 violate:
a) Article III, Section 1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;
b) Article III, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;
c) Article III, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution; and/or
d) Article III, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

(Not answered below).
(Suggested answer in the affirmative).

3. Does the system of unvouchered expenses established by Act 44 violate the Pennsylvania Constitution, and should this Court reconsider and/or overrule the decision in Consumer Party of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth, 510 Pa. 158, 507 A.2d 323 (Pa. 1986)?

(Not answered below).
(Suggested answer in the affirmative).

4. In the event any portion of Act 44 is deemed unconstitutional, would enforcement of the non-severability provision in the statute violate Article V, section 16(a) of the Pennsylvania Constitution?

(Not answered below).
(Suggested answer in the negative).

5. Are Petitioner’s constitutional challenges moot?

(Answered in the affirmative below).
(Suggested answer in the negative).

Go to Part 2

Return to Index

Return to Centrist