SUNBURY - The decision as to which firm will be hired to become the county-wide collector of earned income tax will soon belong to a Northumberland County judge rather than the committee established two years ago that was charged to make that very determination.
The Northumberland County Tax Collection Committee's solicitor petitioned the court this week to choose a uniform tax collector after the committee itself failed to do so.
A hearing on the matter will be held Dec. 8, attorney Ed Greco, committee solicitor, said Friday night.
A rift among delegates of the county's 44 taxing bodies spurred a lawsuit and appears to have widened to a chasm in the wake of a verdict last month that stated the committee was in violation of its bylaws and mandated weighted voting be used when making decisions.
Weighted voting - as preferred by plaintiffs Shamokin Area, Line Mountain and Milton Area school districts, Shamokin City, Milton borough and Coal Township - would give each taxing body a greater or
lesser share of the vote in proportion to its population and tax collections as compared to a simple majority.
It appears the defendants, made up of the remaining 38 taxing bodies, feel this method would neuter the voting power of smaller taxing entities and leave them without much of a voice.
Origin
The committee has been meeting since fall 2009. A state law, Act 32, required formation of similar committees in all Pennsylvania counties with the goal of making earned income tax collection, distribution and reporting more efficient and uniform, with the system in place for January 2012.
Earlier this year, a non-weighted vote - one jurisdiction, one vote - was held, with Capital Tax Collection Bureau, Harrisburg, winning the job and spurring the lawsuit. If a weighted vote had been taken, Berkheimer Associates would have been named tax collector.
Wiest had actually reached his decision on the lawsuit on Sept. 15 following arguments by both sides in court. That verdict was held in abeyance, however, allowing both sides to seek compromise before their Oct. 5 meeting. When no compromise was met, Wiest's verdict was officially rendered.
Petition
The first meeting since Wiest's verdict was rendered Oct. 17 was scheduled for Nov. 2. However, a quorum was not reached and the meeting could not be held.
That meant a decision - be it taking a new vote or accepting the original vote with the outcome based on a weighted scale - could not be made.
In a letter to Judge William H. Wiest, the plaintiffs' attorney, Howard L. Kelin, of Lancaster, wrote that delegates for his clients were each present Nov. 2. However, just 10 delegates of the remaining taxing bodies showed.
Also absent, he noted, was chairperson Paula Greco, who could not be reached for comment.
Reached earlier this week, Ed Greco said Wednesday that the petition would recommend the judge choose either Berkheimer or Capital Tax.
"The law further states that the court's decision must be abided by," he said.
The committee, he said, must then enter a contract with whichever entity the judge approves.
But if a quorum isn't reached, a contract can't be ratified, right?
"Well, in theory," Ed Greco responded.
Kelin simply said he hoped a quorum would be reached at the meeting after the judge's decision is made.