The question remains unanswered as to who will hear the suit filed by the Schuylkill County Commissioners against its county controller.

Monday afternoon the commissioners filed an action in mandamus to have the court order Controller Melinda Kantner to provide the county's external auditor, L. Samuel Deegan, CPA, with financial information he has been requesting to complete the audit. The controller and auditor have been bickering for months. The auditor claims he is being "stonewalled" while the controller claims he never performed a county audit.As late as 3 p.m. Tuesday the county court administrator said she has not received a copy of the complaint filed three stories below in the prothonotary's office and cannot make any ruling. Kantner did not received her copy of the suit until Tuesday morning and her solicitor, Attorney Sudhir R. Patel entered his appearance Tuesday afternoon on behalf of the controller.It is doubtful any of the six county judges will hear the case and it will be referred to the state Superior Court to assign an out-of-county judge for the hearing as was done when Kantner filed a suit against the commissioners for removing an auditor from her office. That case is pending a hearing in November.Under the county code it is required by the county controller to make an annual report to the Court of Common Pleas of all receipts and expenditures of the county for the proceeding year. Also, a report must be filed with the Department of Community Affairs and Economic Development (DCED). This report was due last July 1.Earlier this year through bids the commissioners engaged a different external auditor to make a single audit of the fiscal year of 2009 as they are the sole contracting authority for the county and Kantner was not invited to give her opinion. Bickering began shortly after between the controller and auditor as his approach was different from the previous auditor whose reports had been timely made.On June 7, Judge D. Michael Stine ruled, upon consideration of a petition filed by Kantner seeking extra time for the audit, that the court was unaware of any authority which it can grant the requested relief and having been shown none the request was denied.Kantner later filed a petition for the judge to reconsider and showed several county courts granting such relief to its auditor and also pointed out under the law she is allowed to make such a request. On July 17 Stine again denied the request claiming she still failed to show legal authority for him to act.Under the county code the services requested to be performed by the auditor include a review and provide an opinion on the fair presentation of the county financial status; the auditor has to be responsible for performing certain limited procedures involving regulatory supplementary information required by the Governmental Account Standards; the audit should provide "in relation-to" opinion on the schedule of expenditures of federal grants and shall be responsible for preparing the schedule of expenditure of the federal grants received.In the mandamus action the commissioners claim, despite the two court orders denying an extension of time, the controller has failed and refuses and continues to refuse to make a detailed report to the county court of all expenditures ending Dec. 31, 2009, together with a full financial condition which they say is a violation of the county code. Also that a similar report must be made to DCED, which does not grant extensions.The commissioners want the court to order the controller to complete and file her annual report in accordance with the county code in 30 days and asks the court to give the commissioners further relief it deems to be reasonable and just. They also ask the court to order her to give the auditor within 30 days the information he has requested.