Received 3/13/2019 6:24:11 PM Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Filed 3/13/2019 6:24:00 PM Commonwealth Court

146 MD 2019

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CRAIG STEDMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :

AS LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :

Petitioner, : No. MD 2019

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS; JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF
THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER COUNTY
COMMISSIONER,

Respondents,

JOSHUA SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :

AS PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; and :

BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :

LANCASTER COUNTY CONTROLLER,

Nominal/Non-adverse Respondents.

NOTICE TO PLEAD
To: LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN

OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

i
DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-
CHAIRMAN OF THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS

CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER

COUNTY COMMISSIONER

JOSHUA SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS

PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL

BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER

COUNTY CONTROLLER

You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed

petition for review within thirty (30) days from service hereof or a
judgment may be entered against you.
Dated: March 13, 2019 s/ Mark E. Seiberling
Mark E. Seiberling (No. 91256)
KLEINBARD LLC
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ph: (215) 568-2000
Fax: (215) 568-0140
Eml: mseiberling@kleinbard.com

Attorney for District Attorney Craig

Stedman

ii
 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CRAIG STEDMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :

AS LANCASTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, :

Petitioner, : No. MD 2019

v.

LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF

COMMISSIONERS; JOSHUA PARSONS, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE
LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; DENNIS STUCKEY, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS VICE-CHAIRMAN OF
THE LANCASTER COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS; CRAIG LEHMAN, IN HIS
OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS LANCASTER COUNTY
COMMISSIONER,

Respondents,

JOSHUA SHAPIRO, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY :

AS PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL; and :

BRIAN HURTER, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS :

LANCASTER COUNTY CONTROLLER,

Nominal/Non-adverse Respondents.

PETITION FOR REVIEW IN THE NATURE OF A COMPLAINT

FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Petitioner Craig Stedman, in his official capacity as Lancaster

County District Attorney, by and through his undersigned counsel, does

hereby bring this petition for review in the nature of a complaint for
declaratory and injunctive relief, and in support thereof, avers as

follows:

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and its

constituent members have embarked on a related two-part plan to

encroach upon the independent powers of the Lancaster County District

Attorney.

2. First, they are attempting to interfere in District Attorney

Stedman's use of funds exclusively committed to his control by the

General Assembly under Act 13 of 2017. In pursuit of these interference

efforts, the Commissioners are also intruding upon audit and

investigation rights exclusively held by the Attorney General and the

County Controller.

3. Second, the Commissioners are attempting to interfere with

District Attorney Stedman's independent statutory rights to control

human resource matters within his office.

4. Accordingly, the Court's intervention is needed to declare the

parties' respective legal rights and to end the improper encroachments

2
upon District Attorney Stedman's statutory and constitutional

authority.

II. JURISDICTION
5. Petitioner files this Petition in the Court's original

jurisdiction seeking declaratory judgment under the Declaratory

Judgments Act, 43 Pa.C.S. § 7531, et seq., and injunctive relief.

6. This Court has original jurisdiction over the claims in

Count I under Section 761(a)(1) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 761(a)(1).

7. Further, this Court has ancillary jurisdiction over the claims

in Count II because they are related to the claims within the Court's

original jurisdiction set forth in Count I.

III. PARTY SEEKING RELIEF

8. Petitioner Craig Stedman is the duly elected Lancaster

County District Attorney, an independent county officer under

Article IX, Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. District Attorney

Stedman brings this Petition in his official capacity.

IV. GOVERNMENT UNITS WHOSE ACTIONS ARE IN ISSUE

9. Respondent Lancaster County Board of Commissioners is

the official body, composed of individual county commissioners,

3
responsible for the transaction of business of Lancaster County, a third

class county, under The County Code, 16 P.S. § 504(a).

10. Respondent Joshua Parsons is a duly elected Lancaster

County Commissioner, an independent county officer under Article IX,

Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Commissioner Parsons

serves as the Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and is named as

a Respondent only in his official capacity.

11. Respondent Dennis Stuckey is a duly elected Lancaster

County Commissioner, an independent county officer under Article IX,

Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Commissioner Stuckey

serves as the Vice -Chairman of the Board of Commissioners and is

named as a Respondent only in his official capacity.

12. Respondent Craig Lehman is a duly elected Lancaster

County Commissioner, an independent county officer under Article IX,

Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Commissioner Lehman is

named as a Respondent only in his official capacity. (Respondents

Commissioners Lehman, Parsons, and Stuckey are referred to

collectively as the Lancaster County Commissioners or the

Commissioners.)

4
V. OTHER INDISPENSABLE PARTIES

13. Respondent Joshua Shapiro is the duly elected Pennsylvania

Attorney General, an independent executive officer under Article IV,

Section 4.1 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Attorney General Shapiro

is named as a Respondent only in his official capacity. Further,

Attorney General Shapiro is named as a nominal/non-adverse

Respondent only because he is an indispensable party to Count I of this

action in that the declaration of rights sought by District Attorney

Stedman in Count I would impact his authority under Act 13.

14. Respondent Brian Hurter is the duly elected Lancaster

County Controller, an independent county officer under Article IX,

Section 4 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Controller Hurter is named

as a Respondent only in his official capacity. Further, Controller Hurter

is named as a nominal/non-adverse Respondent only because he is an

indispensable party to Count I of this action in that the declaration of

rights sought by District Attorney Stedman in Count I would impact his

authority under Act 13.

5
VI. GENERAL STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS
A. Asset forfeiture disputes
(1) Act 13 of 2017
15. In 2017, the General Assembly passed Act 13 of 2017

(Senate Bill 8 of the 2017-2018 Regular Session), which added a number

of provisions to Pennsylvania law, chiefly codified at 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5801-

5808. The laws produced by Act 13 were later slightly amended with

Act 80 of 2018 (Senate Bill 1090 of the 2017-2018 Regular Session).

16. The purpose of Act 13 was to reform civil asset forfeiture

procedures in the Commonwealth and to allow law enforcement to take

possession of certain property involved in criminal activity.

17. One of the key aspects of Act 13 was its provision concerning

how the cash and proceeds of property subject to forfeiture could be

used and by whom, codified in 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803.

18. In relevant part, cash or proceeds of property subject to

forfeiture under the law are now "transferred to the custody of the

district attorney" and "shall be placed in the operating fund of the

county in which the district attorney is elected." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g).

19. Immediately thereafter, under Section 5803, the

CC

appropriate county authority shall immediately release from the

6
operating fund, without restriction, a like amount for the use of the

district attorney for enforcement of or prevention of a violation of the

provisions of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic

Act." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g) (emphasis added).

20. The funds then received by the district attorney, after being

received by the county authority and immediately returned, "shall be

maintained in an account or accounts separate from other revenues of

the office." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g).

21. The law further provides that those funds are then

quarantined from county authority or consideration, stating: "[t]he

entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or

proceeds from future forfeitures in adoption and approval of the budget

for the district attorney." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g).

22. Not only are the funds quarantined from county authority

consideration after being turned over to the district attorney, they are

also beyond the county's control, with the law stating the district

attorney has sole jurisdiction over them: "Cash or proceeds of property

subject to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the custody

of the district attorney ... shall be utilized by the district attorney ... for

7
the enforcement of or prevention of a violation of the provisions of The

Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act." 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 5803(i).

23. While the district attorney has sole control over the

forfeiture funds, his use thereof is subject to two layers of oversight.

24. First, as is relevant here, the county controller must perform

an annual audit of all forfeited property and proceeds obtained and

used by the district attorney. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(j). The county

controller's audit is statutorily confidential, and "shall not be made

public." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(j).

25. Second, the county controller's audit is then submitted to the

Attorney General for further review. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(j). The Attorney

General is also tasked by law with adopting reporting procedures and

guidelines for district attorneys to be used in auditing and reporting the

forfeiture assets. The Attorney General is further tasked with making

an annual report to the Appropriations and Judiciary Committees of the

Pennsylvania House and Senate. 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(k).

26. The procedures and guidelines developed by the Attorney

General are designed, by statute, "to protect the confidentiality of

8
forfeited property or proceeds used in ongoing law enforcement

activities." 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(k)(2).

(2) Forfeiture disputes between District Attorney

Stedman and Lancaster County Commissioners
27. District Attorney Stedman presently is in possession of

certain funds forfeited as provided in Act 13.

28. In 2016, District Attorney Stedman used a portion of those

proceeds to lease a 2016 Toyota Highlander.

29. The vehicle was to be used, and has been used, as District

Attorney Stedman's official vehicle.

30. Prior to leasing the vehicle using asset forfeiture funds,

District Attorney Stedman did not solicit the Lancaster County

Commissioners' input or approval, and did not lease the vehicle using

any procurement procedures in The County Code.

31. District Attorney Stedman did, however, solicit and receive a

certification from County Controller Hurter that District Attorney

Stedman was "duly authorized to lease and/or finance" the vehicle. A

true and accurate copy of Controller Hurter's certification is attached as

Exhibit A.

9
 32. Notwithstanding Act 13's provisions, which give District

Attorney Stedman sole control over the forfeiture funds and which give

County Controller Hurter and Attorney General Shapiro sole audit

authority over the use of such funds, the Lancaster County Board of

Commissioners, collectively and individually, have invoked a purported

right to be involved.

33. Specifically, the Lancaster County Commissioners have

insisted that the Toyota lease agreement should have been subjected to

the Commissioners' contracting authority under The County Code.

34. While the Commissioners have not yet, to date, identified

exactly which provision(s) of The County Code they are invoking,

presumably they are invoking 16 P.S. §§ 1800-1807.2, concerning

contracts, and specifically 16 P.S. § 1801(a), which provides that "the

commissioners shall contract for and purchase all services referred to in

Section 508 and personal property for county officers and agencies."

35. Based on this purported authority, the Lancaster County

Commissioners have further insisted that they can, and will,

investigate all matters concerning the vehicle lease; that is, they intend

to audit the expenditure of Act 13 funds.

10
 36. But this is plainly beyond the Commissioners' intentionally

limited role under Section 5803.

37. The contracting provisions of The County Code simply do not

apply to expenditures by a district attorney of Act 13 funds.

38. Indeed, the General Assembly made clear that the sole event

involving county commissioners is the immediate appropriation of Act

13 funds back to a district attorney after they are deposited with the

county. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g).

39. The Lancaster County Commissioners' position that Act 13

funds held by District Attorney Stedman are subject to their further

appropriation/contracting authority amounts to an "absurd"

interpretation of the law; namely, that already appropriated funds are

subject to a second appropriation after they are out of the

Commissioners' control.

40. Their position is further absurd since the General Assembly

expressly directed that Act 13 funds, once possessed by a district

attorney, shall only be "utilized by the district attorney" and the county

authority is expressly forbidden from even budgeting for the use or

11
expenditure of the funds by the district attorney. See 42 Pa.C.S.

§ 5803(g), (i).

41. The Lancaster County Commissioners' position that they can

subject the Act 13 funds to ordinary County Code contracting

procedures improperly inserts the Commissioners into the use of funds

that only District Attorney Stedman is statutorily permitted to use.

42. Further, the purported investigatory powers the

Commissioners assert is unlawful.

43. The so-called "investigation" is nothing more than a

differently named "audit" by the County Commissioners.

44. That audit is impermissible because it (1) usurps authority

that is only held, by statute, by the Controller and the Attorney

General, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(j); and (2) seriously risks a violation of

the express confidentiality provisions in Section 5803 concerning

forfeiture proceeds. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(j), (k)(2).

45. District Attorney Stedman has brought all of these legal

issues and concerns to the attention of the Lancaster County Board of

Commissioners in a series of three letters sent on March 5, 2019 and

12
March 7, 2019. True and accurate copies of the March 5th and March 7th

correspondence are attached as Exhibits B, C, and D, respectively.

46. But, in response to those letters, the County Commissioners

have remained steadfast and resolute in their belief that they have the

ability to review and/or audit "Mr. Stedman's use of drug forfeiture

funds[.]" A true and accurate copy of the County Solicitor's March 7th

correspondence is attached as Exhibit E.

47. This is so despite the County Controller's letter of March 13,

2019, which expressly states that Act 13 expenditures have always been

"handled at the discretion of the Lancaster County District Attorney"

subject to the Controller's annual audit, and without any separate audit

or independent oversight from the County Commissioners. A true and

accurate copy of the County Controller's March 13th correspondence is

attached as Exhibit F.

48. Accordingly, to forestall the unlawful encroachment on the

authority of District Attorney Stedman under Act 13 by the Lancaster

County Board of Commissioners and the individual members thereof,

District Attorney Stedman seeks a declaration of the rights and powers

of the parties involved.

13
 B. Employment disputes
49. The encroachments by the Lancaster County Commissioners

upon District Attorney Stedman's independent statutory and

constitutional powers are not limited to intrusions under Act 13.

50. Indeed, as part of an overall related scheme to interfere with

District Attorney Stedman's independent powers, the Lancaster County

Commissioners are also violating his official capacity rights under The

County Code.

(1) Employment provisions under The County Code

51. Under The County Code, the district attorney is empowered

to "appoint such number of assistants, licensed to practice law in this

Commonwealth, to assist in the discharge of duties." 16 P.S. § 1420(a).

52. Further, employees hired by a district attorney, who is an

independent county officer, see Pa. Const. Art. IX, § 4, are exclusively

subject to his hiring, discharging and supervising rights, with The

County Code stating: "The exercise of [certain representation rights] by

the county commissioners shall in no way affect the hiring, discharging

and supervising rights and obligations with respect to such employees

as may be vested in the judges or other county officers." 16 P.S. § 1620.

14
 (2) Employment disputes between District Attorney
Stedman and Lancaster County Commissioners
53. In February 2019, District Attorney Stedman suspended,

with pay, an assistant district attorney within his office, exercising his

powers under Sections 1420 and 1620 of The County Code.

54. The employee was, a short time later, reinstated by District

Attorney Stedman.

55. Recently, District Attorney Stedman learned that the

Lancaster County Board of Commissioners is investigating District

Attorney Stedman for both the suspension and the reinstatement of the

employee.

56. As such, District Attorney Stedman sent a letter to the

County Commissioners on March 7, 2019, separately advising them

that, as with their attempts to audit and investigate his use of Act 13

funds, the County Commissioners were equally without the legal

authority or power to investigate his employment actions. A true and

accurate copy of the March 7th correspondence is attached as Exhibit G.

57. Later, the Lancaster County Commissioners responded,

through the Human Resources Director, by publicly releasing a so-

called "Final Summary" on March 13, 2019, in which, utterly contrary

15
to The County Code, the Commissioners revealed that they had

unlawfully completed a significant "review" of District Attorney

Stedman's actions. A true and accurate copy of the March 13th Final

Summary is attached as Exhibit H.

58. In the Final Summary, the Commissioners revealed

information that should have remained utterly confidential to protect

the privacy and reputational rights of the parties involved, including

allegations and purported findings involving employees within the

District Attorney's Office involved in the matter.

59. Indeed, the Final Summary revealed enough information

that a local news outlet was able to associate the allegations in the
Summary with current and former employees of the District Attorney's

Office.

60. In the Final Summary the Commissioners also use their

unlawful investigation as a platform to make policy and employment

recommendations to District Attorney Stedman and to make certain

demands for information.

61. The Commissioners' investigation of District Attorney

Stedman is troubling because, as the chief law enforcement official for

16
the County, District Attorney Stedman's records contain sensitive

information, including information protected under the Criminal

History Record Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9101 et seq.

62. Further, and critically, District Attorney Stedman, as an

independent constitutional officer, is not himself a county employee or a

person subject to review or investigation by the Lancaster County

Board of Commissioners or the members thereof.

63. Accordingly, to forestall the unlawful encroachment on the

authority of District Attorney Stedman under The County Code and the

Pennsylvania Constitution by the Lancaster County Board of

Commissioners and the individual members thereof, District Attorney

Stedman seeks a declaration of the rights and powers of the parties

involved.

COUNT I-DECLARATORY RELIEF

(DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEDMAN v. ALL RESPONDENTS)
64. The foregoing Paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

set forth in full herein.

65. A party may obtain a declaration of existing legal rights,

duties, or status of parties by filing a petition under the Declaratory

Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531, et seq.

17
 66. The purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act is to "settle

and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to

rights, status, and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed

and administered." See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,

8 A.3d 866, 874 (Pa. 2010) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 7541(a)).

67. In this matter, District Attorney Stedman has taken the

position that his use of Act 13 funds is not subject to the Lancaster

County Board of Commissioners' contracting authority under The

County Code nor are his expenditure of Act 13 funds subject to audit or

investigation by the Commissioners.

68. The Lancaster County Board of Commissioners and the

individual Commissioners have taken an opposite legal position,

insisting they have the power to control District Attorney Stedman's

actions and the power to audit and review Act 13 expenditures in

addition to County Controller Hurter and Attorney General Shapiro.

69. Respondents County Controller Hurter and Attorney

General Shapiro are indispensable parties to this dispute because the

declaration of rights sought by District Attorney Stedman would impact

their authority under Act 13.

18
 70. Accordingly, there exists a clear legal dispute between

Petitioner and Respondents.

71. Declaratory judgment from the Court would resolve the

present legal controversy between the parties.

72. District Attorney Stedman is entitled to declaratory

judgment to resolve the present legal dispute.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner District Attorney Stedman requests

that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:

a. declare that only County Controller Hurter and Attorney

General Shapiro have the authority under Act 13 to audit or investigate

District Attorney Stedman's use of Act 13 funds;

b. declare that the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners

and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey, and Lehman cannot investigate

or audit District Attorney Stedman's use of Act 13 funds;

c. declare that contracting procedures under The County Code

do not apply to District Attorney Stedman's expenditure of Act 13

funds;

19
 d. permanently enjoin the Lancaster County Board of

Commissioners and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey, and Lehman

from auditing or investigating District Attorney Stedman's expenditure

of Act 13 funds; and

e. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

COUNT II-DECLARATORY RELIEF

(DISTRICT ATTORNEY STEDMAN V. LANCASTER COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONERS
PARSONS, STUCKEY, AND LEHMAN)
73. The foregoing Paragraphs are incorporated by reference as if

set forth in full herein.

74. A party may obtain a declaration of existing legal rights,

duties, or status of parties by filing a petition under the Declaratory

Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 7531, et seq.

75. The purpose of the Declaratory Judgments Act is to "settle

and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to

rights, status, and other legal relations, and is to be liberally construed

and administered." See Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.,

8 A.3d 866, 874 (Pa. 2010) (citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 7541(a)).

20
 76. District Attorney Stedman has taken the position that his

employment actions under The County Code, specifically under 16 P.S.

§§ 1420, 1620, are not subject to review by the Lancaster County Board

of Commissioners and the members thereof, and also he is not subject to

their review because, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, he is an

independent official, and thus not subject to their review.

77. The Commissioners, however, have taken a contrary legal

position, insisting they have the power to review the actions of District

Attorney Stedman, who is not a County employee subject to their

review, and who has independent, employment powers under The

County Code.

78. Accordingly, there exists a clear legal dispute between

Petitioner and Respondents Lancaster County Board of Commissioners

and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey, and Lehman.

79. Declaratory judgment from the Court would resolve the

present legal controversy between the parties.

80. District Attorney Stedman is entitled to declaratory

judgment to resolve the present legal dispute.

21
 WHEREFORE, Petitioner District Attorney Stedman requests

that the Court enter judgment in his favor and grant the following
relief:

a. declare that District Attorney Stedman's employment

decisions are not subject to review or investigation by the Lancaster

County Board of Commissioners and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey,

and Lehman;

b. declare that the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners

and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey, and Lehman cannot investigate

District Attorney Stedman, since he is not a county employee subject to

their control or authority;

c. permanently enjoin the Lancaster County Board of

Commissioners and Commissioners Parsons, Stuckey, and Lehman

from reviewing or investigating District Attorney Stedman's

employment decisions; and

d. such other and further relief as this Court deems just and

proper.

22
 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 13, 2019 s/ Mark E. Seiberling

Mark E. Seiberling (No. 91256)
Joshua J. Voss (No. 306853)
KLEINBARD LLC
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ph: (215) 568-2000
Fax: (215) 568-0140
Eml: mseiberling@kleinbard.com
jvoss@kleinbard.com

Attorneys for District Attorney Craig

Stedman

23
 VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Petition
for Review are true and corrected based upon my personal knowledge or

information and belief. I understand that false statements therein are

subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn

falsification to authorities.

Dated: t5/M4 11
District Attorney Craig Stedman

(01725340;v I )
Exhibit A
 TOYOTA( CERt.IPIPP R16OLUTION
3m . AND ikquoto*Ncy Cg.RTIPIOATE
'140 LEAS OR FINANCE

The undersigned hereby certifies thtt.he/She is io it of

41-04_,(0w,-4-1 that the following resolution was passed in accordance
with the organt4ational documents' and. operating procedures of said entity, and that said resolution has not since been

revoked or amended;

CRAi(3 (A),
Resolved that ( 0 c-A-116-S
Abtial.
odc 0
L
)
is duly authorized to lease and/crfinance from

any factory authorized Toyotas Lextis .or Solon autornotive dealership or 'dealerships ("Dealer"), and Dealer's intended

assignee, Toyota 'Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota Lease Trust, or Lens Financial Services ("Lessor/Crediter"), under
. equipment, and. upon such terms and conciltlene as the
one or more leases/instaliment contracts; vehicles, and/ot .

representative(s) hereinafter authorized, In their discretion, May deem necessary and advisable,

Resolved that the Authorized Signature(s) below Isieris, a Sample of sigotores of the authorlled reprdSentOve s as

witnessed. by the duly elected or appointed officials Of A*PAV4.6:\ o,l ,(4 DI 0YR,r1W0f.t (

AUTHpRliED SIGNATURP: AME TITLE:

D t_51-Acc
x

The Lessor/Creditor is hereby authorized to act *Upon these resolutions until written notice of their revocation is delivered

to the Lesser/Creditor, '

-.\< I, gOck,v \* h--0--t-'t .-:-,-- ,

et, ,A-r.,:, tlx ke"
_.....,,

J.- .
a.,..:1 -4,k .tc...., (-.,-. 2-,
orgenIzsti under. laws of the etiato of 'fil.:11141 . , do hereby certify that the.foreoolnQ is a fu 1, true and

corrpot oppyOf.rwilutions pf duly viuthorizod offictoi of LA 10604 :111 e0k:Ar \s- \N:ek" tii\balt 1 ( ..

In witness whereof; I crave hereunto sat my..hand this,. 2- t qday of Ti.,-13,A.,: we,:.,4 i ti, .
.

Name:
Title;

. ,

7176 (Mil)
Exhibit B
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222

KLEINBARD.

March 5, 2019

VIA EMAIL

Office of the County Commissioners 150 N. Queen St.

Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman Seventh Floor, Suite 715
Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman Lancaster, PA 17603
Craig E. Lehman

RE: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND

UNLAWFUL OVERSIGHT OF INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICER

Dear Lancaster County Commissioners:

On behalf of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"), I write
concerning a series of false and defamatory statements you have made related to DA Stedman's
alleged misuse and misappropriation of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use an official work
vehicle. I also write regarding your unauthorized and unlawful attempts to investigate DA
Stedman, a constitutional officer independent from the County Commissioners, for how he has
chosen to spend civil forfeiture funds, his use of an official vehicle, and how he supervises his
employees.

As you are certainly aware, DA Stedman, as the duly elected District Attorney, is an
independent constitutional officer. See Pa. Const. art. IX, § 4. As such, the Lancaster County
Commissioners have no oversight authority over the District Attorney, nor do they have the
ability to initiate an investigation into matters concerning the District Attorney's performance of
his duties or responsibilities. Indeed, as you certainly know, the District Attorney, as an
independent constitutional officer, has exclusive authority over the hiring, firing and supervision
of his office employees. See 16 P.S. § 1620.

As recently as today, you made public statements that you believe DA Stedman may have
been misusing or misappropriating drug forfeiture funds to pay for and use a leased official
vehicle, and that he may have circumvented the County's procurement process in doing so.
These statements are categorically false and must be immediately retracted. DA Stedman's use
of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use an official vehicle was, at all times, an appropriate and
proper use of civil forfeiture proceeds, as provided for by the civil forfeiture statute. See
42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g). Moreover, as you are aware, the lease and use of the official vehicle with
drug forfeiture funds was expressly approved in writing by the County Controller on behalf of
the County. If anything, DA Stedman's use of drug forfeiture funds to lease and use the official

Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 'I: 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 5, 2019
Page 2

vehicle in lieu of County taxpayer funds should be viewed as a net savings for the County and its
taxpayers.

In a similar vein, you also made public statements insinuating that DA Stedman may
have improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to the use of his
official vehicle. As you are well aware, however, DA Stedman self-reported months ago to the
County Controller any alleged overpayments for mileage and the matter was resolved. Indeed,
any alleged overpayments for mileage were rectified, and the County was made whole. As you
know, both the County Solicitor and the County Controller approved of the resolution of that
matter.

Furthermore, any attempts by you to unlawfully investigate or audit DA Stedman's use of

drug forfeiture funds must cease immediately. How the District Attorney spends drug forfeiture
funds is exclusively within the oversight authority of the Lancaster County Controller and the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not the Lancaster County Commissioners. See 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 5803(j), (k). Indeed, to this end, the forfeiture statute expressly requires:

(g) Use of cash or proceeds of property. --Cash or proceeds of property, subject

to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the custody of the district
attorney under subsection (1) shall be placed in the operating fund of the county in
which the district attorney is elected. The appropriate county authority shall
immediately release from the operating fund, without restriction, a like amount
for the use of the district attorney for the enforcement of or prevention of a
violation of the provisions of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and
Cosmetic Act. The funds shall be maintained in an account or accounts separate
from other revenues of the office. The entity having budgetary control shall not
anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds from future forfeitures in adoption and
approval of the budget for the district attorney.

42 Pa.C.S. 5803(g). Thus, your proposed audit/inquiry is both an unconstitutional

§
encroachment on the independent authority of the District Attorney and expressly proscribed by
the forfeiture statute itself.

Likewise, your attempts to unlawfully investigate DA Stedman's decision to take

personnel action against an office employee is in direct derogation of 16 P.S. § 1620. Again, DA
Stedman, as an independent constitutional officer, has exclusive authority over the hiring, firing
and supervision of his office employees. As such, you lack the authority or power to second-
guess, let alone outright investigate, DA Stedman's employment decisions.

Please be advised that DA Stedman is seriously considering pursuing formal legal

remedies against you in connection with your false and defamatory statements and your attempts
to unlawfully and illegally investigate him. Your statements not only seriously impugn the
character and reputation of DA Stedman, but they also improperly impute serious wrongful
conduct to him, constituting defamation per se without the need to prove actual damages.
March 5, 2019
Page 3

Similarly, your unlawful attempts to investigate DA Stedman constitute a serious overreach of

constitutional and statutory powers that must be curtailed.

Accordingly, this letter serves as a formal demand that you: (1) immediately cease and
desist from making any statements going forward that DA Stedman allegedly misused or
misappropriated drug forfeiture funds to, among other things, lease an official vehicle, or that
DA Stedman improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to his
official vehicle; (2) post a retraction of any such false and defamatory statements previously
made; and (3) immediately cease and desist from seeking to investigate or audit DA Stedman
related to his expenditure of drug forfeiture funds, his lease and/or use of the official vehicle, his
supervisory authority over his employees, or any other matters clearly beyond your purview as
County Commissioners. Your failure to comply with these demands will result in one or more
civil actions being filed against you for declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary
damages.

I look forward to your immediate compliance with this cease and desist demand. Please
do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter further.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. Seiberling

cc: Craig Stedman, District Attorney

Eric J. Schreiner, Esquire
Joshua J. Voss, Esquire
Exhibit C
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222

KLEIINBARLE

March 7, 2019

VIA EMAIL

Office of the County Commissioners 150 N. Queen St.

Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman Seventh Floor, Suite 715
Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman Lancaster, PA 17603
Craig E. Lehman

RE: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND

UNLAWFUL OVERSIGHT OF INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICER

Dear Lancaster County Commissioners:

Iwrite in follow-up to my letter of March 5th sent on behalf of Lancaster County District
Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"). It has been more than thirty-six hours since I sent you
my first letter and I have received no response from you, despite receiving correspondence from
the County Solicitor yesterday afternoon that your response would be forthcoming "shortly."
This is obviously very concerning since your false and defamatory statements continue and your
unlawful and illegal investigations have not ceased. As such, unless I receive your promised
response, or some other confirmation that you intend to comply with our cease and desist
demands, we will have no choice but to pursue legal recourse against you.

As I stated in my letter of March your public statements that you believe DA Stedman
5t1i,

may have been misusing or misappropriating drug forfeiture funds to pay for and use a leased
official vehicle are categorically false and must be immediately retracted. Likewise, your
attempts to investigate and/or audit DA Stedman's use of drug forfeiture funds must cease
immediately because it is both an unconstitutional encroachment on the independent authority of
the District Attorney and expressly proscribed by the forfeiture statute itself.

In light of your apparent decision to delay answering my letter and to continue to make
misleading and inaccurate statements on these matters to the public and press, two issues
highlighted in my letter of March 5th warrant additional discussion and explanation.

First, as stated in my letter of March 5th, DA Stedman in no way circumvented the

County's procurement process or secretly entered into the lease for his official vehicle without
County authorization. Again, the lease and use of the official vehicle with drug forfeiture funds
was expressly approved in writing by the County Controller on behalf of the County. See 1/21/16
Certified Resolution and Incumbency Certificate to Lease or Finance, attached as Exhibit A. This
document was in possession of, and accessible to, the County for more than three years, yet you

Philadelphia, 19103 T: 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com

Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor PA
March 7, 2019
Page 2

apparently made no attempts to obtain it, review it, or make it public prior to making your false
and defamatory statements about DA Stedman to the local newspaper.

Moreover, how DA Stedman spends drug forfeiture funds, including whether to use those
funds to lease an official vehicle, is exclusively within the oversight authority and jurisdiction of
the County Controller and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not you. See 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 5803(j), (k). It must be emphasized that drug forfeiture funds are not taxpayer dollars subject
to review, audit, or oversight by you. Indeed, the forfeiture statute expressly excludes you from
considering drug forfeiture funds in the adoption of the County's budget. See 42 Pa.C.S. §
5803(g) ("The entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds
from future forfeitures in adoption and approval of the budget for the district attorney.").
Additionally, because drug forfeiture funds are initially deposited into the County's operating
fund and then immediately released from the operating fund to the District Attorney "without
restriction" for drug enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, these statutorily
appropriated monies are not subject to the typical County procurement process. See id.

Second, and more basically, there is nothing improper, illegal or untoward about DA
Stedman leasing an official vehicle with drug forfeiture funds. As the chief law enforcement
officer for the County, DA Stedman is on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. This
includes
Task Force. The forfeiture statute expressly provides for the use of these funds for drug
enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, and that is exactly what DA Stedman is
using the funds for in leasing an official vehicle. See 42 Pa.C.S. § 5803(g). DA Stedman has
leased his official vehicle for the last three years, and not once over the course of those three
years has either of the two bodies responsible for the oversight of drug forfeiture expenditures-
the County Controller and the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General-flagged (or even
questioned) DA Stedman's lease of an official vehicle as somehow being an improper or
inappropriate use of drug forfeiture funds. Tellingly, chief law enforcement officers in other
counties are routinely provided taxpayer -funded vehicles, but, unlike those other counties, DA
Stedman has chosen to use drug forfeiture funds (as opposed to taxpayer funds) to lease his
official vehicle, thereby actually providing a savings to the County taxpayers.

Furthermore, with respect to DA Stedman's submission of mileage reimbursement for his

official vehicle, this matter was self-reported by DA Stedman months ago to the County
Controller and resolved with the approval of the County Solicitor. DA Stedman is, and always
has been, entitled to reimbursement for the fuel portion of his mileage reimbursement. Because
the official vehicle is being leased, DA Stedman voluntarily reimbursed the County for any
overpayment on his mileage reimbursement that was not directly attributable to his fuel costs.
DA Stedman has never abused his mileage reimbursement privileges and, if anything, he as
serially underreported his mileage expenses over the years he has served as District Attorney.
And, most importantly, DA Stedman has only ever sought mileage reimbursement for travel that
is strictly official office business.
March 7, 2019
Page 3

As I stated in my letter of March 5'1', DA Stedman is seriously considering pursuing

formal legal remedies against you in connection with your false and defamatory statements and
your attempts to unlawfully and illegally investigate him. Moreover, we have serious concerns
that your continued public statements related to DA Stedman's lease of an official vehicle with
drug forfeiture funds has the put the safety of DA Stedman and his family at risk, as well as
potentially compromised ongoing criminal investigations being conducted by his office.

Accordingly, this letter serves as a second demand that you: (1) immediately cease and
desist from making any statements going forward that DA Stedman allegedly misused or
misappropriated drug forfeiture funds to, among other things, lease an official vehicle, or that
DA Stedman improperly or illegally submitted for mileage reimbursement with regard to his
official vehicle; (2) post a retraction of any such false and defamatory statements previously
made; and (3) immediately cease and desist from seeking to investigate or audit DA Stedman
related to his expenditure of drug forfeiture funds, his lease and/or use of the official vehicle, his
supervisory authority over his employees, or any other matters clearly beyond your purview as
County Commissioners.

look forward to receiving your promised response or some other communication from
I
you regarding these matters. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss
these matters further.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. Seiberling

cc: Craig Stedman, District Attorney

Eric J. Schreiner, Esquire
Joshua J. Voss, Esquire
EXHIBIT A
 TOYOTA( CERt.IPIPP R16OLUTION
3m . AND ikquoto*Ncy Cg.RTIPIOATE
'140 LEAS OR FINANCE

The undersigned hereby certifies thtt.he/She is io it of

41-04_,(0w,-4-1 that the following resolution was passed in accordance
with the organt4ational documents' and. operating procedures of said entity, and that said resolution has not since been

revoked or amended;

CRAi(3 (A),
Resolved that ( 0 c-A-116-S
Abtial.
odc 0
L
)
is duly authorized to lease and/crfinance from

any factory authorized Toyotas Lextis .or Solon autornotive dealership or 'dealerships ("Dealer"), and Dealer's intended

assignee, Toyota 'Motor Credit Corporation, Toyota Lease Trust, or Lens Financial Services ("Lessor/Crediter"), under
. equipment, and. upon such terms and conciltlene as the
one or more leases/instaliment contracts; vehicles, and/ot .

representative(s) hereinafter authorized, In their discretion, May deem necessary and advisable,

Resolved that the Authorized Signature(s) below Isieris, a Sample of sigotores of the authorlled reprdSentOve s as

witnessed. by the duly elected or appointed officials Of A*PAV4.6:\ o,l ,(4 DI 0YR,r1W0f.t (

AUTHpRliED SIGNATURP: AME TITLE:

D t_51-Acc
x

The Lessor/Creditor is hereby authorized to act *Upon these resolutions until written notice of their revocation is delivered

to the Lesser/Creditor, '

-.\< I, gOck,v \* h--0--t-'t .-:-,-- ,

et, ,A-r.,:, tlx ke"
_.....,,

J.- .
a.,..:1 -4,k .tc...., (-.,-. 2-,
orgenIzsti under. laws of the etiato of 'fil.:11141 . , do hereby certify that the.foreoolnQ is a fu 1, true and

corrpot oppyOf.rwilutions pf duly viuthorizod offictoi of LA 10604 :111 e0k:Ar \s- \N:ek" tii\balt 1 ( ..

In witness whereof; I crave hereunto sat my..hand this,. 2- t qday of Ti.,-13,A.,: we,:.,4 i ti, .
.

Name:
Title;

. ,

7176 (Mil)
Exhibit D
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222

KLEINBARD,

March 7, 2019

VIA EMAIL

Christina L. Hausner, Esquire

Lancaster County Solicitor
150 North Queen Street, Suite #714
Lancaster, PA 17603

RE: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS AND

UNLAWFUL OVERSIGHT OF INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL
OFFICER

Dear Ms. Hausner:

On behalf of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA Stedman"), I write
to respond to your factually misinformed and legally misplaced letter of today, which you sent
on behalf of the Lancaster County Commissioners in response to my initial letter of March 5th.
Specifically, I write to address the following glaring legal errors and factual omissions in your
response.

First, you mischaracterize and misrepresent my March 5th letter as some type of "attempt
to intimidate and prevent [the Lancaster County Commissioners] from doing their duty on behalf
of the citizens of Lancaster County." Ltr. at 1. But, in reality, my letter does nothing of the sort.
Rather, my letter seeks to prevent the County Commissioners from violating both the
Pennsylvania Constitution and clear statutory law. I encourage the Commissioners to continue
performing their duties on behalf of the citizens of Lancaster County. However, as you know, the
Commissioners' oversight powers and statutory authority are not limitless and must be
appropriately checked when they engage in an overreach.

Second, you incorrectly claim that "[s]ource of funds is not a work around for the Board
of Commissioners' contracting authority." Ltr. at 1. But, in reality, yes it is. As I stated in my
follow-up letter sent today-which your response wholly ignores-drug forfeiture funds are not
taxpayer dollars subject to the County Commissioners' review, audit, or oversight. See 42
Pa.C.S. §§ 5803(g), (j), (k). Rather, drug forfeiture funds (as opposed to County taxpayer funds)
are exclusively within the oversight review and jurisdiction of the County Controller and the
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not the County Commissioners. See id. Moreover,
because drug forfeiture funds are initially deposited into the County's operating fund and then
immediately released from the operating fund to the District Attorney "without restriction" for
drug enforcement activities and drug prevention programs, these statutorily appropriated monies
are not subject to the typical County procurement process. See id.

Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street., 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 1': 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 7, 2019
Page 2

Third, you falsely misrepresent the timing of DA Stedman's self-reporting of alleged

overpayments for mileage reimbursement on his leased official vehicle as having occurred "on
February 21, 2019" and "five days after he was advised by this office of a right to know request
seeking documents relating to the leased vehicle[.]" Ltr. at 2. But, in fact, the self-report occurred
50 days before that, on January 2, 2019. This fact can be easily verified by the County
Controller. The County Controller then took a few weeks to analyze and calculate the amount of
overpayment, which wasn't finalized until February 21'.

Fourth, you misleadingly rely on non-precedential rulings from the Pennsylvania Office
of Open Records and a Pennsylvania trial court to support your claim that "the release of drug
forfeiture financial information" is "appropriate, and in fact, required." Ltr. at 3. However, as
you certainly know, those other rulings have no binding authority in the "open records case now
before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County." Id. As such, until the Lancaster County
Court rules on the open records case, disclosure of any drug forfeiture financial information
would be imprudent and, in our review, contrary to the express provisions of the civil forfeiture
statute. See 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5803(g), (j), (k).

Fifth, and finally, you erroneously claim that I am somehow representing DA Stedman in
his personal capacity. See Ltr. at 3. But, in fact, I am not. As I stated from the outset, I am
representing DA Stedman in his official capacity as Lancaster County District Attorney. Any
damages we are seeking are solely in this official capacity and not personal to him. As such, if
DA Stedman chooses to use taxpayer or drug forfeiture funds to pay for my representation that is
his prerogative and not yours. Indeed, any attempt by the County Commissioners to somehow
impede or direct how DA Stedman uses his official office funds would again be another illegal
and unlawful overreach similar to the overreaches that precipitated my retention in the first
place.

Accordingly, I ask that you reconsider the overly defensive and unproductive positions
you have taken in your response and, instead, choose to comply with my initial cease and desist
demands. Otherwise, we will have no choice but to file a lawsuit against the County
Commissioners no later than next week.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss these matters further.

Very truly yours, ...

Mark E. Seiberling
March 7, 2019
Page 3

cc: Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman

Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman
Craig E. Lehman, Commissioner
Lawrence George, Chief Clerk
Craig Stedman, District Attorney
Eric J. Schreiner, Esquire
Joshua J. Voss, Esquire
Exhibit E
 Office of the Solicitor
Cainc_clicr 150 North Queen Street
Suite #714
Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: 717-735-1584
County Solicitor Fax: 717-293-7208
March 7, 2019
Christina L. Hausner, Esquire www.co.Iancaster.pa.us

VIA EMAIL TO:

mseiberling@kleinbard.com
Mark E. Seiberling
Kleinbard, LLC
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Re: Notice of Cease and Desist Defamatory Statements and

Unlawful Oversight of Independent Constitutional Officer

Dear Mr. Seiberling:

Your March 5, 2019 Notice to Cease and Desist Defamatory

Statements and Unlawful Oversight of Independent Constitutional Officer on
behalf of your client, Mr. Craig Stedman, has been provided to me for
response.

The Lancaster County Commissioners will not accede to your

demands that they cease and desist from making comment about and refrain
from reviewing Mr. Stedman's use of drug forfeiture funds, and his receipt of
mileage reimbursement and other payments from the County's general fund.
The Board of Commissioners views your communication as an attempt to
intimidate and prevent them from doing their duty on behalf of the citizens of
Lancaster County. As County leaders, it is necessary that our Commissioners
not be restricted in doing the work of County government and speaking out
on matters, like this one, that have the potential to seriously undermine faith
and confidence in County government.

In response to the leasing matter you raised, pursuant to the County

Code, the Board of Commissioners is the contracting authority for all
contracts entered into by County entities regardless of the source of funds.
This includes County elected row offices, including the District Attorney's
Office. This is the basis for the Commissioners' accurate statement that Mr.
Stedman went outside of the County procurement process and that as a result,
it was not approved by the County and the vehicle lease was improper.
Source of funds is not a work around for the Board of Commissioners'
contracting authority. We expressly deny your statement that the lease and
use of the vehicle was "expressly approved in writing by the County
Mark E. Seiberling
March 7, 2019
Page 2

Controller on behalf of the County" or that this claim was known by the
Commissioners. Indeed, it wasn't until Tuesday of this week when the
District Attorney's Facebook page posted a Resolution signed by County
Controller Brian Hurter that we knew of any documentation associated with
the vehicle lease. Controller Hurter has indicated that this Resolution and the
vehicle lease are not held in his office. Neither are within the County's
purchasing department and newspaper reports indicate that your client will
not produce the lease or identify who signed it.

The other issue you reference, taking mileage reimbursement from

County funds while driving a County -leased vehicle paid for with drug
forfeiture funds is a serious one. We deny your claim that the Board of
Commissioners was fully aware of either the leased vehicle or the three years
of inappropriate payment of mileage reimbursement on the leased vehicle as
they were advised of it only on Monday of this week.

We further dispute your characterization that Mr. Stedman "self-

reported" his three years of overpayments "months ago". The inappropriate
mileage reimbursement on a leased vehicle first occurred in February 2016
and the "self-report" reimbursement was received by the County Controller
on February 21, 2019. In addition, Mr. Stedman's "self-report" came five
days after he was advised by this office of a right to know request seeking
documents relating to the leased vehicle thereby informing him that the
media requester already possessed financial information about the lease and
the vehicle.

Your characterization of Mr. Stedman's February 21, 2019

reimbursement of improperly paid mileage reimbursements in the amount of
$1,459.94 as being approved by me, the County Solicitor, is incorrect.
Controller Hurter notified me on February 27, 2019 of the manner in which
he and Mr. Stedman calculated the reimbursement amount and his actions in
accepting payment from Mr. Stedman. (The total amount found to be due was
stated to be $1,957.56 and a credit in the amount of $497.61 for gasoline
purchased was applied for a net amount due and received in the amount of
$1,459.94.) I was under the misapprehension that the mileage reimbursement
was paid out of drug forfeiture funds not the County general fund account,
and that the Controller had the discretion to approve such a resolution. The
Board of Commissioners was not informed of these actions until this week.
We question the set off against the mileage reimbursement for gasoline used
during 2016, 2017, and 2018 in that there were no receipts provided,
potentially making this credit an unvouchered expense.

Your cease and desist notice was sent within a week of the Board of
Commissioners filing its Petition to Intervene in the open records case now
before the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County. Although Mr.
Mark E. Seiberling
March 7, 2019
Page 3

Stedman claims that the release of drug forfeiture financial information is not
permitted by law, both the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records and another
Pennsylvania Court have found that release is appropriate, and in fact,
required. This situation demonstrates the need for the release of drug
forfeiture financial records (subject to redaction for non -disclosure of
sensitive law enforcement information) for transparency and good
government as advocated in our Petition.

With regard to your contention that the actions of the County

Commissioners give rise to a claim for defamation, for the above stated
reasons and in view of the substantial legal burden a public official like Mr.
Stedman faces in prevailing in such a claim, we regard any civil action
brought for declaratory, injunctive and monetary damages as you have
threatened to be wholly without merit.

Finally, please be advised that as your letter identifies damages

personal to Mr. Stedman, no taxpayer or drug forfeiture funds should be used
to pay for your representation of Mr. Stedman.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

Very truly yurs,

istina L. Hausner

cc: The Honorable Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman

The Honorable Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman
The Honorable Craig E. Lehman, Commissioner
Mr. Lawrence George, Chief Clerk
Exhibit F
 Controller's Office
150 North Queen Street
Suite #710
Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: 717-299-8262
Controller www.co.lancaster.pa.us
Brian K. Hurter, CPA
March 13, 2019

Controller's Office Statement Re: Drug Task Force Expenditures and Procedures

The Drug Task Force (DTF) and the expenses related to the DTF have been handled at the
discretion of the Lancaster County District Attorney (DA) and DTF since the inception of
the DTF. At the end of the DTF's fiscal year (June 30th) the Controller's office is responsible
to audit the DTF and report the information to the State Attorney General's office which
has been done every year. During our audit we have access to any information needed
from the DTF to complete our audit. Any questions that we have are then asked to the
DTF and they are always cooperative with answering our questions and providing any
additional explanation or information that is needed.

In January 2016, was asked to complete a "Certified Resolution and Incumbency

I

Certificate to Lease of Finance" from Toyota and confirm that there was money in the
account. My belief was that this document states that Craig Stedman was the District
Attorney for Lancaster County and that he has the ability to act in the authority of that
position. This document is not a lease agreement. My office does not have a copy of the
lease agreement for the 2016 Toyota Highlander. We are unaware who signed the actual
agreement or who would be liable in the event of default. The Controller does not have
the authority to sign off on leases for the county or DTF. When signed this document, it
I

was with the understanding that there was a vehicle being leased for the DTF fleet of
vehicles and not for any specific individual. The reason for leasing the vehicle, opposed
to purchasing as had been done previously, was because it was deemed to be favorable
compared to purchasing a vehicle and it would allow the DTF to keep the fleet more
updated. In January 2016, the county did not have a full-time county solicitor, reviewed
I

this document with the Controller's office solicitor and based on follow-up questions we
learned that the vehicle to be leased was a 2016 Toyota Highlander. Based on information
that received, was under the impression that there were other individuals that were
I I

aware of this lease. The Commissioner's office is aware of this and can address as they
deem appropriate. The DTF vehicle fleet is insured under the county's insurance policy.
A listing of all vehicles covered under the county's policy is maintained by the
Commissioner's office. This list includes the 2016 Toyota Highlander under DTF and notes
that there is a three-year lease on the vehicle.
As noted in the first paragraph, the expenditures of DTF funds have always been made at
the discretion of the DA. Forfeiture of Assets Act states under Section 5808(g) that "Cash
or proceeds of property, subject to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the
custody of the District Attorney under subsection (f) shall be placed in the operating fund
of the county in which the District Attorney is elected. The appropriate county authority
shall immediately release from the operating fund, without restriction, a like amount for
the use of the District Attorney for the enforcement of or prevention of a violation of the
provisions of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. The funds shall
be maintained in an account or accounts separate from other revenues of the office. The
entity having budgetary control shall not anticipate future forfeitures or proceeds from
future forfeitures in adoption and approval of the budget for the District Attorney." As
noted, the DTF funds should not be anticipated "in adoption and approval of the budget
for the District Attorney."

During our audit we verify that funds are spent in accordance with the Forfeiture of Assets
Act. Section 5807 states "Property, money or other things of value received by State law
enforcement authority under any of the following laws may not be used for contributions
to political campaigns, expenses related to judicial trainings or the purchase of alcoholic
beverages." There are no further restrictions on the use of funds. As noted above in
Section 5808(g) states the funds should be used "for the enforcement of or prevention of
a violation of the provisions of the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act."

During our audit we verify that the expenditures are spent in accordance with the
guidelines and that they are used for the enforcement and prevention of drugs.

As noted several times, the expenditure of DTF funds in Lancaster County were handled
at the discretion of the DA and this has been the case since the inception of the DTF. This
is the first time since took office in November 2013 where this practice has been
I

questioned. Based on discussion with my team am not aware of this practice ever being
I

questioned. The normal procurement process for the county would typically run through
purchasing; however, with the DTF funds being handled at the discretion of the DA, the
normal county procurement process has never been followed for the DTF. The Toyota
Highlander is the only new lease that am aware of since took office. There are two
I I

building leases through the DTF which have been in place since 2002 and 2004. The
monthly rent expenses related to these leases have never been questioned and like the
Highlander lease the Controller's office does not maintain these leases. Since 2000 (as
far back as we can pull the records), there have been 19 vehicles purchased using DTF
funds and none of these vehicles have been handled through the county's procurement
process. There are also expenditures on an annual basis that are over the bid threshold
which are handled and have always been handled at the discretion of the DA. To my
knowledge none of these expenditures have ever been questioned. When this question
came up two weeks ago, reached out to the Controller's Association to see how other
I

counties handle the procurement process for DTF funds and the response was mixed.
There are some counties where the expenditure of DTF funds are under the discretion of
the DA, as Lancaster County has handled them, and other counties where the funds are
handled through the county procurement process.
As noted previously, the Forfeiture of Assets Act states "Cash or proceeds of property,
subject to forfeiture under section 5802 and transferred to the custody of the District
Attorney under subsection (f) shall be placed in the operating fund of the county in which
the District Attorney is elected." Any proceeds that are received by the DA are placed
into the Lancaster County General Fund bank account (the operating bank account of the
county). Any payments that are made from the General Fund bank account, which would
include DTF disbursements, are approved by the Commissioners, Controller, and
Treasurer as part of the weekly accounts payable process. The weekly check register that
is provided includes information about the payments that are being made that week.

When DA Stedman brought the mileage reimbursement error to my attention, reviewed

I

it with my team so that we could decide how to proceed and handle the process in the
same way as any previous similar situations. He offered an explanation and followed up
that explanation with memo which we felt was a reasonable explanation. The error that
a

DA Stedman noted was that he used both county and personal vehicles and he handled
the mileage for both of them the same. The county's expense form is set up in a way
where the employees drop in the mileage and the amount is automatically calculated.
When he brought this to our attention we went back and reviewed his expense reports
for the period of time he thought was an issue. Given that the issue was over a three-
year period we worked with DA Stedman to determine which expenditures were related
to his personal vehicles and which ones were related to the county vehicle. We then used
the mileage reimbursement rate, the vehicle's miles per gallon, and an average gas price
to do the calculation. Because of the period of time we were looking at we felt this was
a reasonable solution to the issue. At the end of the review we met with DA Stedman and

he wrote a check to the county for the determined amount. We held the check until had I

a chance to review the proposed resolution with the county solicitor. Once we reviewed

it and no issues were noted we deposited the check. The Controller's office handled this
situation just like we would in any other situation of this nature. We review the available
information to determine what we feel is the best way to handle the process and come
to a resolution. Once we determine we have the information we need to come up with a
resolution, we present it to the necessary parties. This was a very unique situation
because there are not many, if any, county employees that would be using both personal
and county vehicles in the way which DA Stedman uses them. During 2016 the
Controller's office completed a travel expense audit and DA Stedman was one of the
employees selected during that audit. During that audit there were no mileage
calculation concerns noted for DA Stedman.
Exhibit G
Mark E. Seiberling
mseiberling@kleinbard.com
215.496.7222

KLEIINBARIL

March 7, 2019

VIA EMAIL

Office of the County Commissioners 150 N. Queen St.

Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman Seventh Floor, Suite 715
Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman Lancaster, PA 17603
Craig E. Lehman, Commissioner

RE: NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL

EMPLOYMENT INVESTIGATION

Dear Lancaster County Commissioners:

As you know, I represent Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman ("DA
Stedman"). I write again on behalf of DA Stedman to address a separate but related investigation
you are apparently undertaking of DA Stedman concerning his decision to take personnel action
against an office employee. As with your attempt to illegally and unlawfully investigate DA
Stedman with respect to his leasing of an official vehicle with drug forfeiture funds, your attempt
to apparently investigate DA Stedman related to his employment decisions is equally illegal and
unlawful for at least two reasons.

First, and most importantly, DA Stedman, as the duly elected District Attorney and an
independent constitutional officer, has exclusive and plenary authority over the hiring, firing and
supervision of his office employees. See Pa. Const. art. IX, § 4; 16 P.S. §§ 1420, 1620. As such,
you are constitutionally and statutorily prohibited from investigating DA Stedman about
personnel decisions made, or personnel actions taken, related to his office employees.

Second, and related, DA Stedman is not an employee of the County subject to

investigation by you for allegedly violating the County employee handbook. To the extent that
you may believe DA Stedman's personnel action may have violated the County employee
handbook's mandated separation between County functions and political campaign activities,
DA Stedman, as an independent constitutional officer, is not bound by the strictures of the
County employee handbook. As such, you lack the oversight authority and jurisdiction to seek to
enforce any of the provisions of the employee handbook against DA Stedman. Indeed, any
allegations of politicking on County time that may form the basis for your unlawful and illegal
inquiry would be within the jurisdictional purview of the Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission
and/or the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General, not you.

Three Logan Square 1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 T: 215.568.2000 F: 215.568.0140 Kleinbard.com
March 7, 2019
Page 2

Beyond the clear legal bars to your attempted investigation of this personnel matter, it is
also worth noting that, factually, your investigation is without merit. As you know, this personnel
matter has been fully resolved by DA Stedman, and no formal grievance or complaint is pending.
The employee has returned to work and all parties are jointly committed to moving forward for
the good of the office. And, it must be emphasized, your own Human Resources Department
agreed with, and approved of, the personnel action taken in this matter.

Accordingly, this letter serves as a formal demand that you immediately cease and desist
from seeking to investigate DA Stedman related to his decision to take personnel action against
an office employee. Your failure to comply with this demand will result in us having to pursue
declaratory and injunctive relief against you to protect DA Stedman's constitutional powers and
statutory authority.

I look forward to your immediate compliance with this cease and desist demand. Please
do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to discuss this matter further.

Very truly yours,

Mark E. Seiberling

cc: Craig Stedman, District Attorney

Eric J. Schreiner, Esquire
Joshua J. Voss, Esquire

{01722311;v2 }
Exhibit H

County Commissioners
Joshua G. Parsons, Chairman
Dennis P. Stuckey, Vice -Chairman
Craig E. Lehman, Commissioner
Human Resources
150 North Queen Street
Suite #312
Human Resources Complaints - Final Summary Lancaster, PA 17603
Phone: 717-299-8310
March 13, 2019 www.co.lancaster.pa.us
The Lancaster County Office of Human Resources recently completed review of
a
two complaints regarding related events from the Office of the District Attorney.
The first complaint alleged that an employee was put on paid administrative
leave and the motivation for doing so was related to political campaign activities
which is a violation of County policy. This complaint is substantiated. The District
Attorney cited an internal office policy as justification. The District Attorney
office policy requires an employee who is a candidate for public office to resign
upon the announcement of the candidacy, but also states "The District Attorney
may modify this requirement in his sole discretion." This Policy allows the
District Attorney to determine those employees who can retain employment and
those who must resign when running for public office. This explains the District
Attorney's belief of the appropriateness of "giving permission" to his employees
to run for office. This internal policy conflicts with Lancaster County policy which
requires separation of County functions and political activities.
The recommendations from this review are:
That the District Attorney office policy regarding political activity be
revised to be compatible with County policy regarding political activity,
ensuring that there is separation between office functions and political
activities.
That all departments be notified that any departmental policies related
to political activity ensure separation between office functions and
political activities, and that a review be conducted by Human Resources
of any departmental policies related to political activities to ensure
separation of office functions and political activities.
The second complaint resulted from an employee in the District Attorney's office
attending a meeting of County Republican leaders with a file in his possession
relating to a co-worker running for political office. This complaint is
substantiated. The employee used a confidential file, which by his own
admission contained information regarding a personnel matter relating to a co-
worker, for political purposes. These actions violate County policies.
It was recommended to the District Attorney that this employee be disciplined
for his actions up to and including termination as he violated County policy by
attempting to influence a political campaign with confidential personnel
information. It was further recommended that all files held in the District
Attorney's office relating to this matter be immediately turned over to Human
Resources.
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing document
upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service

satisfies the requirements of Pa.R.A.P. 121:

Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail

Attorney General Joshua Shapiro Lancaster County Board of
Office of Attorney General Commissioners
15th Floor, Strawberry Square 150 N. Queen St.
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Seventh Floor, Suite 715
Lancaster, PA 17603
Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail
Commissioner Craig Lehman Commissioner Dennis Stuckey
150 N. Queen St. 150 N. Queen St.
Seventh Floor, Suite 715 Seventh Floor, Suite 715
Lancaster, PA 17603 Lancaster, PA 17603
Via U.S. Mail Via U.S. Mail
Commissioner Joshua Parsons Controller Brian Hurter
150 N. Queen St. 150 N. Queen St.
Seventh Floor, Suite 715 Seventh Floor, Suite 710
Lancaster, PA 17603 Lancaster, PA 17603

Dated: March 13, 2019 s/ Mark E. Seiberling

Mark E. Seiberling (No. 91256)
KLEINBARD LLC
Three Logan Square
1717 Arch Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Ph: (215) 568-2000
Fax: (215) 568-0140
Eml: mseiberling@kleinbard.com

Attorney for District Attorney Craig

Stedman