According to an Aug. 24, 2014, ruling on an appeal before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, the Harold Rochon debacle is not the first time Fort Smith City Administrator Carl Geffken has been involved in dubious hiring practices at a municipality.
Geffken was a key figure in a lawsuit against the mayor-elect of Reading, Pennsylvania, and the Reading Charter Board.
Vaughn D. Spencer served as an elected official for the city of reading for over 16 years including a four-year term as mayor. That term ended in 2015 amid speculation and scandal of a FBI probe that resulted in his indictment of on nine counts of bribery, and one count each of wire fraud and conspiracy.
Geffken was hired in Fort Smith in May of 2015 as the city administrator to replace an ailing and retiring Ray Gosack. By that time, Geffken had changed jobs and was in administration for Berks County. Pennsylvania.
Spencer was elected to office in November 2011. During his campaign, Spencer announced a “Policy Action Plan” to restructure the Mayor’s office.
To achieve that goal, Mayor-elect Spencer sought several new staff appointed to the Mayor’s office who would be ready to assume their duties on January 2, 2012, when his term began.
In December 2011, Spencer sought the advice of the Reading City Managing Director, Geffken, and others to determine whether the employees could be hired and in place on Jan. 2, 2012, without violating the Charter, the Administrative Code, or any other applicable law.
At a meeting on Dec. 28, 2011, Geffken advised mayor-elect Spencer that the four employees could be hired on a part-time basis without reopening the previous year’s budget or amending the city’s annual position ordinance.
On Feb. 28, 2012, in response to questions about hiring part-time employees for positions not included in either the City’s annual budget or Position Ordinance, the Charter Board issued Advisory Opinion No. 28, stating that the Charter requires all employment positions to be listed in the annual Position Ordinance and budget before they can be filled.
Thereafter, the City Council enacted an ordinance to amend the 2012 budget and position ordinance to include three of the four positions.
On March 23, 2012, a city council member filed a complaint with the Charter Board regarding the City’s hiring of the employees. The Charter Board’s Investigative Officer concluded that the Mayor had violated the Charter by hiring the Employees without the proper authorization.
In response, Spencer obtained a sworn statement from Geffken about the hiring of the employees.
In the affidavit, Geffken stated he had advised Mayor-elect Spencer in December 2011 that hiring the employees part-time was permitted and that Geffken “solely determined and decided that offers of part-time employment would be promptly made.”
Geffken confirmed that the offers of employment were made and accepted prior to Jan. 1, 2012, and prior to Spencer taking office on Jan. 2, 2012.
Based on the Geffken declaration, the parties stipulated that if called to testify at the Charter Board hearing, Geffken would state that, while mayor-elect Spencer desired to have his senior team hired, he did not in any way pressure or influence Geffken with respect to his determination that [the Employees] could properly be hired on a part-time basis.
After a hearing, the Charter Board determined that Spencer had violated the Charter by hiring the employees to positions that did not appear in an amended budget or position ordinance.
The Charter Board further held that Spencer hired the employees through his subordinate Geffken.
Finally, although the Charter Board found that the Jan. 3, 2012, letters to the employees confirmed the “offers and acceptances of employment previously made and given,” the Charter Board also determined that the offers and acceptances “occurred on Jan. 3, 2012.”
The Charter Board rejected the stipulation of the parties regarding the statements Geffken would have made if called to testify, finding those statements “not credible.”
The Charter Board publicly censured Mayor Spencer and levied a $1,000 administrative fine.
Spencer appealed the Charter Board’s decision to the trial court.
The trial court reversed and vacated the Charter Board’s order, holding that its findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. The trial court also held that the Charter Board capriciously disregarded the Geffken declaration by simply rejecting it as “not credible.”
The Charter Board appealed that decision and the higher court overturned the lower court decision.
Spencer’s term in office was fraught with scandal, including three other fights over the power of the mayor, involving three ethics and charter complaints, cost taxpayers $1.2 million in legal fees — $900,000 for Spencer’s 11 attorneys, and the rest for the charter and ethics boards’ attorneys.
