A request by the Schuylkill County Controller Melinda Kantner for reconsideration the ruling made by County Judge Charles M. Miller ordering her to file the annual audit on county financial spending for 2009 by October 1 was denied Tuesday afternoon by the judge.

Miller ruled the motion to reconsider was inappropriate in light of the court's order of Sept. 3 but an appeal may be taken from the ruling of the court of granting a preemptory judgment to the county commissioners against Kantner.On Aug. 23 the commissioners filed a mandamus complaint against Kantner in her capacity as controller. Throuigh their mandamus complaint the commissioners sought to compel Kantner to file an annual and Department of Community Economic Development (DCED) report called under the county code and on August 25 filed a motion for peremptory judgement asking the court for a speedy decision on the mandamus suit to compel Kantner to file the annual report.On Aug. 26 Miller, to whom the case was assigned, ordered a pre-trial conference in his chambers for Sept. 3. The day before the scheduled conference Kantner filed preliminary objections to the mandamus complaint on grounds of insufficient specificity and legal insufficiency. She also responded to the motion for peremptory judgement, alleging that past county practice involved the county's external auditor assisting in the preparation of the report and DCED reports. She also claimed that the county administrator and external auditor both requested in writing she seek extension of the July 1 report deadlines. Kantner did file to court seeking an extension and twice was turned down by Judge D. Michael Stine.The pre-trial conference took place in Miller's chambers. Kantner claims instead of hold a conference the judge decided to hear oral argument on the commissioners' motion for peremptory judgement. Kantner claims her solcitor raised a number of pertinent points in objections.He argued that past county practice consisted of the county's external auditor assisting in the preparation of the annual and DCED reports; that the rules provide the peremptory judgment is to be granted only in cases where there are no issues or material of facts; that simply because the commissioners asserted facts in their complaint does not mean they are to be accepted as uncontested; that both the county administrator and the auditor the commissioners hired to prepare a single audit requested the extension of time from the July 1 deadline; that the controller disputes the allegation that she is not cooperating with the auditor and what work is being done on the audit.Kantner claims despite her counsel raising various factual issues in the case the judge issued an order the same day directing her to file the audit by Oct. 1. Kantner claims her office have provided significant, substantial and continuing cooperation to the external auditor, claiming the information provided was over 1 1/2 yards high when stacked and the controller's office has spent hundreds of hours compiling information required.Claims handicappedKantner claims the controller's office has not have for many years the computer software necessary to electronically prepare and file the DCED report and that this function was always done by the external auditor. She claims her office is presently without the funding to even purchase the software to comply with the Oct. 1 deadline fixed by court.Kantner further claims that the personnel cut in the controller's office on Dec. 24, 2008, in removing a 20 year plus auditor from her staff and transferring him to the commissioners' office, was a "significant impediment" since the individual removed was charged with the primary responsibility of working on the annual and DCED audits.Kantner claims the primary cause for the report not being completed has been due to the "actions and inactions of the external auditor."Kantner claims the county and commissiners are in fact able to move forward with the budgeting process for the upcoming fiscal year without having to rely solely and exclusively on the audit report.