Haste makes waste — and possibly litigation: Observations on the police chief’s contract

❧ ❧ ❧ ❧

In Which Four Members of Council Outrun Both Caution and Legal Counsel — Your Correspondent Raises an Eyebrow at the Borough’s Most Irregular Work Session

✦

Columbia, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania — The Fifth of May, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-Six

Dearest Gentle Reader,

Your correspondent has read of many a civic spectacle in the noble Borough of Columbia, but rarely has she read of a work session with her eyebrow so thoroughly elevated as after the evening of the fifth of May — wherein council undertook to approve an employment agreement for the incoming Chief of Police with all the delicate precision of a gentleman threading a needle whilst wearing riding gloves.

The new Chief, one Holly Arndt, appears by every account a most capable and suitable personage. That her agreement was nearly entangled in a thicket of contradictory contractual language is no fault of hers whatsoever.

When a lawyer says a contract contradicts itself, the proper response is to fix it — not to dismiss the observation as insufficiently bold.

Council Vice President Heather Zink raised what your correspondent considers entirely legitimate concerns: the agreement distributed the night before did not accord with what had been discussed in executive session, the borough’s own labor attorney had flagged that protective language he’d inserted had been removed, and the document contained directly contradictory provisions regarding whether Chief Arndt would be an at-will employee or enjoy civil service protections. One cannot, in polite society — nor in a court of law — be both simultaneously. Madam Zink was, in this correspondent’s estimation, entirely right to object.

Into this scene stepped Mayor Leo Lutz, who dismissed the labor attorney’s objections as “wishy-washy” and urged council not to delay. His desire to spare Chief Arndt further uncertainty was understandable — but calling one’s own paid legal counsel wishy-washy and pressing forward regardless was, to put it charitably, rather overbearing. Attorneys retained at public expense to scrutinize employment agreements are not engaged to produce mere decoration.

Council Member Ethan Byers moved sensibly to table the matter. Unfortunately, that motion failed. The council then voted four to three to approve the agreement — at a work session, where votes are not typically taken, on a document distributed the night before, over the objections of its own labor attorney. Madam Zink, Mr. Byers, and Mrs. Jeanne Cooper dissented with admirable resolve.

In sum: Chief Arndt is an excellent choice who deserved a clean, legally sound agreement — which is not precisely what she received. The borough may one day wish it had taken a fortnight more to tidy the language. Columbia’s governance deserves deliberation equal to its considerable character, and your correspondent shall be watching — eyebrow perpetually at the ready.

✦

Your Faithful Correspondent & Reluctant Reporter of Borough Affairs,

Lady Whistletown

[Submitted article]