The objections the Schuylkill County Commissioners filed to the civil suit started by county controller was denied by a judge and they now have 20 days to answer her suit as the court ruled.

"They do not have the right to take an employee from another office under the guise of an employer," Controller Melinda Kantner contends in her suit that was filed when the commissioners reassigned an auditor from her office to the commissioners office.The ruling was made by Senior Judge C. Joseph Rehkamp, who was assigned to the case when all six county judges reclused themselves from hearing the case.In an written opinion accompanying his decision, Rehkamp wrote, "The fiscal oversight responsibilities of the Controller may have been impeded by the action of the salary board (which comprises of the three county commissioners and controller) in deleting the auditor's position and trasnferred the title and actual person to the Executivef Branch of County Commissioners". (Paul Buber was taken from the controller's office and assigned to be a financial officer in the commissioners office and has been a key person in preparing the county budget for 2010).Rehkamp continued, "If this transfer has the effect of changing some of the responsibilities of the County Controller as cited in the county code, and giving those responsibillities and duties to an employee of the Commissioners, who is to report directly to the county administrator, then this court finds that the complaint does state a cause of action."This Court is mindful of the separation of powers which exist under our Federal Constitution, so that checks and balances are achieved between the Executive Legislative and Judicial branch of our government. This concept has worked well over the years that our nation has been in existence and the same reasoning applies to the oversight function of the Controller, to protect the taxpayer's money from being spent by the various departments that serve the citizens of the County, in a manner that does not serve their best interests."The judge continued, "The defendants (county commissioners) have the right, as the 'Public Employer' to change the number of employees in each office under their control and to set their salaries and work hours but they do not have the right to take on the duties and responsibilities of the Controller's office, by transferring a professional employee under the guise of their status as 'employer.'"This Court is satisified that the 'Sunshine Act' violations which occurred Dec. 24, 2008, Salary Board meeting (when the action was taken) were cured by the subsequent meeting in February 2009. However, to grant a demurrer as requested by the commissioners (dismiss the suit) at this stage of proceeding would not be appropriate. Defendants shall respond to the allegations in the suit brought by the Controller," Rehkamp concluded.