Solictor: Monroeville mayor's vetoes overstep his authority
Monroeville Solicitor Bruce Dice told Mayor Greg Erosenko that his recent attempt to veto an administrative action by municipal council is beyond the scope of his authority.
Erosenko tried to veto the salary and benefit package that council approved in March for municipal Manager Lynette McKinney. But according to Dice, the salary is protected by precedence.
McKinney's salary is fixed within a range previously unanimously adopted by council, and authorized by the mayor via his signature, Dice said at Tuesday's Monroeville Council meeting.
Erosenko also has spoken out against council's decision to move the supervisory responsibilities of the 511 tax office from elected Tax Collector Pat Fulkerson to McKinney. The move was in an effort by a majority of council to reduce municipal costs.
Fulkerson held two separate positions. He was elected to collect local real estate taxes, and he was supervisor of Act 511 tax collection, which is not an elected position. Act 511 taxes include business privilege and mercantile taxes.
Dice cited a section of the municipal home rule charter that states no elected official can also hold an administrative position within the municipality.
Erosenko said he is considering taking his veto to court and potentially use up to $2,500 from the municipal budget for legal expenses, which Dice said is permissible under the Pennsylvania Borough Code. There is no section in the home rule charter that addresses the legality of such an action.
Kyle Lawson is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8755, or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.