HEIMBACH, P. J.,
Summarized, the complaint brought by James F. Walker and Albert U. Koch, two of the Carbon County Commissioners, sets forth that the controller, without legal justification, refuses to pay either the staff or the executive director of the Carbon County Planning Commission1 the salaries set by the salary board at a duly convened meeting. The answer of the controller denies that the convened salary board was legally constituted, because the president of the planning commission illegally participated in setting the salaries as a member of the salary board.2 In addition, he says that the classifications, executive director and secretary, and the salaries set, $8,500 and $4,150, respectively, have no budgetary category and are excessive.
The first question we are called upon to determine is this: Does the executive head of the planning commission sit as a member of the salary board when the salaries of the employes assigned to such commission are affected?
The Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, sec. 1622, 16 PS §1622, as it pertains to Carbon County, provides that the salary board shall consist of the board of county commissioners and the controller. Section 1625(a) [172]*172provides that the county officer or executive head of an agency shall be a member of the board in the consideration of salaries and number of employes “as long as any matter affecting his office or agency is under consideration.”
We adopt the syllabus statement in Commissioners of Fayette County v. Controller, 28 Fayette 4, as the principle of law we are to follow, viz.:
“1. The term ‘officer or executive head’ used in the County Code (16 PS 1625) to designate sometime members of the county salary board includes the executive heads of autonomous or independent county boards or agencies, and not those persons whose employment is at the will of executive heads who are permanent members of the salary board.”
Defendant argues that the members of the planning commission are persons who are subject to the will of the executive heads, i.e., the Carbon County Commissioners, who are permanent members of the salary board, because:
(a) The “governing body,” being the Carbon County Commissioners (section 107(10)), has power to enter into any contracts or agreements concerning the planning agency, citing sections 2103 and 211.4
[173]*173(b) The governing body alone has the power to control the expenditures, citing section 106.5
(c) The preservation and maintenance of the records of any act of the agency is in the hands of the governing body, citing section 209(27)(2).6
(d) The right to hire is in the “appointing authority,” citing sections 208, 210.7
(e) The planning commission has no power or authority to hire anyone and if an engineer is required it must use the services of the municipality’s engineer, citing section 201.
(f) The governing body has the power to create or abolish, by ordinance, a planning commission or planning department, or both; section 201; see footnote 7.
(g) The staff of the planning commission owes their employment to the will of the commissioners, the present members of the salary board, and, as such, are the amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners.
For the most part, the expressed contentions of defendant are unsupported by the sections of the act cited by him in support of such contentions, as noted [174]*174in our footnotes. Nowhere does he support his expressed averment in his brief that the planning commission, as it was created and constituted under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, is dependent upon the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the Carbon County Commissioners. It does not follow that, because the governing body may abolish the commission by ordinance, or that because the planning commission may not enter into some contracts or agreements without first having the approval of the governing body, or because funds are appropriated to its use by the governing body, the planning commission’s operations are dictated by the Carbon County Commissioners and that its members are under such board of commissioners’ control.
Defendant’s further statement in his brief that “the staff of the Carbon County Planning Commission under this Act owes its employment to the will of the Commissioners, the permanent members of the salary board, in short, that the staff of the Carbon County Planning Commission is nothing more than the amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners,” is incorrect, but, even if correct, would have no relevancy. Whether or not the staff are amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners has no relevancy in determining whether the planning commission is an autonomous or independent agency and whether, as such, its president sits on the salary board when matters affecting his agency are under consideration. Notwithstanding this statement’s irrelevancy, the incorrectness is glaring. It is the chairman of the board, section 107(3), who, without any approval of the other two commissioners, may designate those he employs to aid the planning commission to carry out the provisions of the Act as consultants or regular employes of the county: section 210. We do not decide, [175]*175as being unnecessary, whether he, as the sole appointing authority, is vested with the sole right of discharge of his appointees or whether such discharge right is in the board.
Having answered seriatim the contentions of defendant, we now answer the question proposed, supra, in the affirmative, our reasons being as follows:
The members of the planning commission, once appointed by the Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners and approved by the board, serve for terms of four years, Act July 31, 1968, no. 247, art. II, sec. 203, 53 PS §10203. Such members may only be removed from office for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance by a majority vote of the board of commissioners, after hearing if demanded in writing, section 206, subject to the right of the board to abolish, by ordinance, the planning commission: section 201. The planning commission elects its own chairman and vice-chairman and creates and fills such other offices as it may determine: section 207. (Italics supplied.)
Since its powers and duties are expressly set forth, section 209, it follows that the planning commission is an autonomous or independent agency and its members are not persons who are in any fashion subject to the will or dictation of the executive heads who are permanent members of the salary board: Commissioners of Fayette County v. Controller, supra. This being so, we hold that when salaries of any employes assigned to aid the planning commission are set by the salary board, the chairman of the planning commission, being the executive head of the agency, sits as a member of the salary board: section 1625(a) of the Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, supra.
We do not decide, as being unnecessary, whether or not the planning commission, under the provisions of [176]*176section 106, may directly employ needed personnel and pay salaries therefor, free of any action of the salary board, from appropriations, grants and gifts.
We do decide that James F.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
HEIMBACH, P. J.,
Summarized, the complaint brought by James F. Walker and Albert U. Koch, two of the Carbon County Commissioners, sets forth that the controller, without legal justification, refuses to pay either the staff or the executive director of the Carbon County Planning Commission1 the salaries set by the salary board at a duly convened meeting. The answer of the controller denies that the convened salary board was legally constituted, because the president of the planning commission illegally participated in setting the salaries as a member of the salary board.2 In addition, he says that the classifications, executive director and secretary, and the salaries set, $8,500 and $4,150, respectively, have no budgetary category and are excessive.
The first question we are called upon to determine is this: Does the executive head of the planning commission sit as a member of the salary board when the salaries of the employes assigned to such commission are affected?
The Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, sec. 1622, 16 PS §1622, as it pertains to Carbon County, provides that the salary board shall consist of the board of county commissioners and the controller. Section 1625(a) [172]*172provides that the county officer or executive head of an agency shall be a member of the board in the consideration of salaries and number of employes “as long as any matter affecting his office or agency is under consideration.”
We adopt the syllabus statement in Commissioners of Fayette County v. Controller, 28 Fayette 4, as the principle of law we are to follow, viz.:
“1. The term ‘officer or executive head’ used in the County Code (16 PS 1625) to designate sometime members of the county salary board includes the executive heads of autonomous or independent county boards or agencies, and not those persons whose employment is at the will of executive heads who are permanent members of the salary board.”
Defendant argues that the members of the planning commission are persons who are subject to the will of the executive heads, i.e., the Carbon County Commissioners, who are permanent members of the salary board, because:
(a) The “governing body,” being the Carbon County Commissioners (section 107(10)), has power to enter into any contracts or agreements concerning the planning agency, citing sections 2103 and 211.4
[173]*173(b) The governing body alone has the power to control the expenditures, citing section 106.5
(c) The preservation and maintenance of the records of any act of the agency is in the hands of the governing body, citing section 209(27)(2).6
(d) The right to hire is in the “appointing authority,” citing sections 208, 210.7
(e) The planning commission has no power or authority to hire anyone and if an engineer is required it must use the services of the municipality’s engineer, citing section 201.
(f) The governing body has the power to create or abolish, by ordinance, a planning commission or planning department, or both; section 201; see footnote 7.
(g) The staff of the planning commission owes their employment to the will of the commissioners, the present members of the salary board, and, as such, are the amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners.
For the most part, the expressed contentions of defendant are unsupported by the sections of the act cited by him in support of such contentions, as noted [174]*174in our footnotes. Nowhere does he support his expressed averment in his brief that the planning commission, as it was created and constituted under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, is dependent upon the sole and uncontrolled discretion of the Carbon County Commissioners. It does not follow that, because the governing body may abolish the commission by ordinance, or that because the planning commission may not enter into some contracts or agreements without first having the approval of the governing body, or because funds are appropriated to its use by the governing body, the planning commission’s operations are dictated by the Carbon County Commissioners and that its members are under such board of commissioners’ control.
Defendant’s further statement in his brief that “the staff of the Carbon County Planning Commission under this Act owes its employment to the will of the Commissioners, the permanent members of the salary board, in short, that the staff of the Carbon County Planning Commission is nothing more than the amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners,” is incorrect, but, even if correct, would have no relevancy. Whether or not the staff are amanuenses of the Carbon County Commissioners has no relevancy in determining whether the planning commission is an autonomous or independent agency and whether, as such, its president sits on the salary board when matters affecting his agency are under consideration. Notwithstanding this statement’s irrelevancy, the incorrectness is glaring. It is the chairman of the board, section 107(3), who, without any approval of the other two commissioners, may designate those he employs to aid the planning commission to carry out the provisions of the Act as consultants or regular employes of the county: section 210. We do not decide, [175]*175as being unnecessary, whether he, as the sole appointing authority, is vested with the sole right of discharge of his appointees or whether such discharge right is in the board.
Having answered seriatim the contentions of defendant, we now answer the question proposed, supra, in the affirmative, our reasons being as follows:
The members of the planning commission, once appointed by the Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners and approved by the board, serve for terms of four years, Act July 31, 1968, no. 247, art. II, sec. 203, 53 PS §10203. Such members may only be removed from office for malfeasance, misfeasance or nonfeasance by a majority vote of the board of commissioners, after hearing if demanded in writing, section 206, subject to the right of the board to abolish, by ordinance, the planning commission: section 201. The planning commission elects its own chairman and vice-chairman and creates and fills such other offices as it may determine: section 207. (Italics supplied.)
Since its powers and duties are expressly set forth, section 209, it follows that the planning commission is an autonomous or independent agency and its members are not persons who are in any fashion subject to the will or dictation of the executive heads who are permanent members of the salary board: Commissioners of Fayette County v. Controller, supra. This being so, we hold that when salaries of any employes assigned to aid the planning commission are set by the salary board, the chairman of the planning commission, being the executive head of the agency, sits as a member of the salary board: section 1625(a) of the Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, supra.
We do not decide, as being unnecessary, whether or not the planning commission, under the provisions of [176]*176section 106, may directly employ needed personnel and pay salaries therefor, free of any action of the salary board, from appropriations, grants and gifts.
We do decide that James F. Walker, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners, as the “Appointing Authority,” section 107(3), properly employed Agnes McCartney and Phyllis Bolton as regular employes of Carbon County to perform administrative and technical services for the planning commission: section 210.
Defendant’s further objection that the classifications and amounts set forth for salaries have no budgetary category and are excessive is without merit. Since James F. Walker had the right to employ, without the approval of the board of commissioners, section 210, supra, he had the right to give such titles to the employes as he in his sole discretion determined. Thus, in designating Mrs. McCartney as the executive director of the planning commission and Phyllis Bolten as secretary, he acted within his authorization. The salary board, in accepting such title designations for budgetary classification likewise acted properly.
We have heretofore held that the salaries were set by a duly convened salary board, whose action in setting the salaries to be paid may, of course, properly be attacked if there is a palpable abuse of discretion. We take judicial notice that there was no such abuse of discretion.
In conclusion, since counsel agree that there are sufficient funds on hand or estimated to be received within the fiscal year and available to pay the salaries set, under the Act of August 9, 1955, P. L. 323, sec. 1784, a transfer of such funds for this purpose is proper.
We, for our reasons stated, enter the following:
[177]*177ORDER
Now, to wit, June 17, 1970, judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs, James F. Walker, John W. Bud Angst and Albert U. Koch, Commissioners of Carbon County, and against Allen D. Kistler, defendant, and he is ordered and directed forthwith to pay the staff, viz., Agnes McCartney, executive director, and Phyllis Bolton, secretary, the amounts set by the salary board.