On Jan. 5, 2009, just before its reorganization meeting that evening, the Rush Township Board of Supervsiors informed Robert J. Romanick he was being demoted from township police chief to patrolman.

Romanick, who held the position for four years, has contended he was never informed of the charges that led to his demotion as chief.Romanick has not served with the township since then; whether he quit or was dismissed is a point of contention. He is currently a patrolman in Mahanoy City.On Feb. 12, 2009, Romanick filed suit in Schuylkill County Court to force the township into a police tenure hearing to disclose the reasons for his dismissal as chief. Schuylkill Judge John E. Domalakes had scheduled arguments to begin on Nov. 12, but the supervisors agreed to hold the hearing.On Tuesday, more than six hours of testimony was heard in the Romanick case at the Rush Township Municipal Building, Hometown.At 5:45 p.m., James Scallion, the Luzerne County attorney hired by the township as hearing officer for the proceedings, continued the hearing, as Romanick, the remaining witness for the defense, had yet to testify.The continuance, which is expected to be scheduled for next month, will allow ample time for Romanick to present his testimony.There was initial confusion as to whether the hearing would be open to the public.A crowd of about 30 people gathered outside the locked front door of the township building as snow flurries fell and the 11 a.m. hearing time approached.After the door was opened and the crowd admitted to the hallway outside the meeting room, attorney George Hludzik, Drums, the prosecuting attorney for the case, announced that Romanick had made a request for an open public hearing, which needed to be made before Scallion, the administering law judge in this case.The crowd was eventually ushered into the meeting room, where Scallion stated that Romanick requested the hearing be open to the public."This is not a public meeting," said Scallion, reminding those in attendance that it was a legal proceeding. "You are not invited to speak or offer input."A list of the charges that had allegedly resulted in Romanick's removal as chief was read.Those allegations included neglect of duty, incompetence, failure to complete work assignments, disregard for supervisors' authority, excessive and unauthorized spending, failure to supervise subordinates, behavior unbecoming of an officer, the use of profanity, accepting gifts from organizations without supervisors' approval, disrespect for supervisors and employees, lack of honesty and candor to supervisors, violating confidentiality, reporting to work out of uniform, and failure to respond to emergencies or to delegate subordinates to do so.Attorney Todd Eagen, Scranton, serving as counsel for Romanick, moved for a dismissal of the charges.Eagen claimed the charges were untimely, since they were dated Dec. 18, 2009, 11 months after Romanick was demoted. Eagen contended the charges should have been given to Romanick within five days of the board's action.Eagen also said the charges were initiated by one member of the supervisory board - current Chairman Stephen Simchak - when under the second-class township code, they should have been made by the majority of the board.Several of the charges also involved a three-day suspension of Romanick that was later reversed into a one and one-half day suspension with back pay, with the reprimand to be removed from his personnel file. Renewing those charges would violate Romanick's due diligence, Eagen contended.Eagen also suggested that many of the charges against Romanick lacked proper notice and specificity.Scallion denied the motion, stating that while the chairman had signed the list of charges, they had been initiated by all the supervisors. He also stated that assertions as to how Romanick's employment ended would require argument.Hludzik moved for Scallion to make his judgment based on the fact that Romanick was offered the patrolman's job with the same pay and benefits he had as chief and essentially abandoned his position, and that whether or not the charges were timely was moot. He suggested the police tenure act isn't applicable in this case, as Rush Township has more than three officers.Scallion also denied Hludzik's motion.Those testifying as witnesses for the prosecution included Supervisors Simchak and Shawn Gilbert; Terri Conville, the township's secretary-treasurer; Carmen Forke, a township auditor; and Carol Simchak, wife of Stephen.William J. Sanchez, Jr., who served on the board of supervisors from 2004-2009, was subpoenaed to testify for the defense.Testimony revealed a strained relationship between Stephen Simchak and Romanick. Simchak described his relationship with the former chief as "stormy," although he had voted to retain Romanick in previous years before the January, 2009 dismissal.Carol Simchak noted an incident at a Mahanoy City block party in July, 2006 at which Romanick allegedly pointed to her husband and told a group within earshot he would someday punch him in the mouth.Stephen Simchak said that when Romanick was informed he would not be reappointed as chief, "he blew up at us." Simchak said Romanick became "combative" and belligerent."He said he was going to own this township in two weeks," he stated. "I felt he hadn't done his job as administrator of the police department."Gilbert testified he had no problems with Romanick as a police officer but wanted to replace him as chief."In my opinion, he was a good officer, absolutely, but he was not a good administrative chief for the township," said Gilbert, who mentioned he would have liked for the chief to work on regionalization issues, getting grant funding and resolving issues with part-time officers.It was Gilbert's view that Romanick had abandoned the job, although Eagen contended the supervisors had left the chief with no other options than to be voluntarily demoted or leave."As a supervisor, if you walk out of my office, you terminated your position," said Gilbert. "I take that as quitting your job. To this day, we haven't terminated the position."Corporal Duane Frederick is currently in charge of the Rush Township Police Department.Sanchez stated he initially voted with Simchak and Gilbert to demote Romanick because he felt "intimidated" by the township's solicitor to do so."I felt threatened," said Sanchez. "I was advised by the attorney that we should be a united board."Sanchez moved to reinstate Romanchick last month, but it died for lack of a second. Sanchez cited concern for the expense to the taxpayers.Under cross examination by Hludzik, however, Sanchez admitted to writing a 2005 evaluation of Romanick that stated the chief needed to improve in his administrative duties, as well as in his attitude and respect for the supervisors.Two instances of Romanick supposedly overstepping his authority mentioned throughout the testimony were the purchase of an assault rifle before receiving supervisors' approval, and allowing an off-duty officer to moonlight at Wal-Mart in Hometown on Black Friday while in uniform and using a township police cruiser.Forke mentioned the township auditors have filed surcharges in Schuylkill Court in both instances. There was confusion as to whether Sanchez and former Supervisor Marion Lazur had authorized the Wal-Mart matter.Hludzik questioned Sanchez as to whether such actions by a police chief would represent a serious lapse in judgment."Does a chief have to possess certain qualities?" he asked."Around here, it's questionable," said Sanchez. "It's who you know."Scallion said he hopes to wrap up the proceedings at the next session, where Romanick will be the witness."We're positioned to accomplish this in a reasonable amount of time," Scallion related.