OLENGINSKI v. County of Luzerne
24 A.3d 1103
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Olenginski is Luzerne County Prothonotary, elected 2009 for a 2014 term.
- In 2010 the Home Rule Charter Commission recommended adopting a home rule charter; voters approved on November 2, 2010.
- Key charter provisions: 12.04 abolishes the Prothonotary office; 12.07(e) and 12.08 transfer duties to Division of Judicial Services; 12.08 allows continued title without duties; 12.02 sets effective date January 2, 2012.
- Olenginski filed a two-count equity complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the charter provisions as violating Separation of Powers.
- The County filed preliminary objections arguing no statutory/constitutional violation, Prothonotary is not judiciary, and Olenginski lacked standing.
- Trial court granted prelim objections, dismissed with prejudice, citing In Re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003 and holding the Prothonotary is a ministerial county officer, not a judicial officer; affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the prothonotary a judicial officer protected by separation of powers? | Olenginski contends prothonotary is part of judiciary | County argues prothonotary is a county officer, ministerial | Not a judicial officer; separation of powers not violated |
| May the home rule charter abolish the Prothonotary office without constitutional violation? | Abolition would infringe separation of powers | charter abolition permissible for county government | Charter abolishing office permissible; office eliminated |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Administrative Order No. 1-MD-2003, 594 Pa. 346 (Pa. 2007) (prothonotary's role is purely ministerial; not a judicial officer)
- Gotwalt v. Dellinger, 395 Pa. Super. 439 (Pa. Super. 1990) (ministerial scope of prothonotary)
- Newsome v. Braswell, 267 Pa. Super. 83 (Pa. Super. 1979) (prothonotary not judicial power holder)
- Smith v. Safeguard Mutual Insurance Co., 212 Pa. Super. 83 (Pa. Super. 1968) (prothonotary lacks judicial powers)
- Thompson v. Cortese, 41 Pa. Cmwlth. 174 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (prothonotary not authority to interpret statutes)
- Warner v. Cortese, 5 Pa. Cmwlth. 51 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1972) (prothonotary not administrative officer with discretion)