Tensions were raised slightly between a Carbon County official and a county judge over the interpretation of a state act involving law enforcement officers and policies.

Last week, President Judge Roger Nanovic made three motions to the salary board regarding new adult probation positions as a result of a $250,000 grant the county was recently awarded.

But before the vote, Commissioner Chris Lukasevich, who has been vocal about feeling the courts aren’t complying with Act 57 of 2020, voiced his concern over the positions, which include two full-time probation officers for pretrial services, and one part-time sentencing guideline technician.

He reiterated that the last position the county created regarding re-entry services didn’t show any success in doing what it was designed to do, citing the increasing budget at the prison, even though the inmate population has decreased by approximately 50.

Nanovic said he believed this conversation had been put to rest in prior discussions between the courts, adult probation and the commissioners.

He added that the position in question that Lukasevich referenced was not being renewed as of Jan. 5, and that there had been a three-time turnover in that position, which is currently vacant.

Lukasevich then voiced his belief that the courts are not complying with an act that the state set regarding law enforcement officers, allowing for not fully vetted employees to hold the position and now sharing proper information in databases about these employees if they are let go.

“Those receiving law enforcement agencies have no way to know of the potential issue with an individual who they are going to hire,” Lukasevich said. “We’re not only impacting Carbon County, but we have the potential of impacting law enforcement agencies and entities across the country because the courts don’t think they have to comply with Act 57.”

Nanovic shot back that this was the first time he was allowed to respond to Lukasevich’s accusation publicly.

He said that the adult probation office has an “extremely aggressive drive” to get offenders out of prison and into parole, which is leading to the drop in inmate population at the correctional facility.

“We had an executive session and explained these to the board,” Nanovic said.

With regards to Act 57, Nanovic said that Lukasevich typically brings this matter up at a meeting when he is not in attendance to respond.

“I have explained to Commissioner Lukasevich on multiple occasions, not once, multiple occasions, that Act 57 is a very poorly drafted statute,” Nanovic said, citing areas of ambiguity that can be interpreted in multiple ways.

He added that he spoke with the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts regarding the requirements of the courts with regards to complying and was told by the agency that oversees this database that a probation officer who is under the supervision of the courts “are not subject to Act 57.”

“Commissioner Lukasevich, for whatever reason, is unwilling to accept that explanation,” Nanovic added. “ ... I believe the court is in compliance with Act 57 and it will continue to be in compliance with Act 57.”

Lukasevich responded, saying previous county solicitor Dan Miscavige provided him with a differing opinion that the courts were not in compliance.

Nanovic then asked for a copy of that opinion so he could review it and better respond to it, but Lukasevich cited attorney-client privilege.

“It’s nice to say you have an opinion for the first time here without even disclosing the basis of the opinion,” Nanovic said. “I’ve given you, and explain not just today but before, why we are in compliance. I have given you the reasoning, the rational. I’ve told you that the agency who is responsible for enforcing Act 57, the quote specialists in the field, has interpreted that probation officers are not subject to this provision ... We’ve gone to that agency. We’ve seen their guidance, their recommendations so apparently, based on what you said, the county solicitor has given you an opinion that’s contrary to the recommendation of the very agency that enforces the statute.”

Lukasevich retorted that the county was also not provided with the state agency’s interpretation on the matter.

Nanovic then stated that Lukasevich should have all the facts before making accusations of illegality.

Lukasevich responded that Nanovic was playing semantics because he said they were in noncompliance and not the legality of the matter.

“If noncompliance is illegality in regards to compliance with Act 57 then so be it,” Lukasevich said. “There synonymous terms then and that’s fine. I will tell you, the courts are not acting in the best interest of Carbon County and other law enforcement agencies and that’s clear.”

“It’s clear to a closed mind perhaps,” Nanovic said. “It’s not clear to the people who are familiar with the situation; who are familiar with the subject; who are familiar with the law in the area.”

Commissioners’ Chairman Wayne Nothstein then gaveled the discussion dead and called for the vote.

The three motions passed 4-1 with Nothstein, Commissioner Rocky Ahner, county controller Mark Sverchek and Nanovic voting yes, while Lukasevich voted no.