The OIC of Lansford police (according to the Labor board docs), went to the borough to file a grievance because the collective bargaining agreement included overtime towards the pension. Lansford didn’t enact an ordinance to implement that procedure. (eventually one was drafted by the solicitor per instructions from council)

The auditor general report (2020) with the borough of Lansford stated “unauthorized benefits” (letting part time hours be used towards pension calculations). The local ordinance also did not address part time hours. This resulted in an overpayment of 8,000 dollars in state aid which the borough had to pay back. The 2024 audit following up for compliance stated “non-compliant” for permitting overtime hours towards the pension. State aid was this time underfunded for 7,000 dollars for reason of omitting an eligible officer.

So the OIC being the spokesperson for the police decided to bully Lansford (esentially Markovich and secretaries) as a strategy to achieve these agreed upon benefits. Lansford enacted this ordinance stating overtime would be included. The previous audits stated the findings of unauthorized benefits were explained to the borough and they understood the findings. These were both signed by council President Markovich and the mayor at the time, Bartek and Vrablic, respectively.

The Police pension fund is governed by 3 documents-Lansford’s ordinance (local law) 2. Agreement between Lansford and the police (collective bargaining) 3. Act 600 (state law) Under Act 600 (Police Pension Fund Act): Salary/compensation actually paid, typically interpreted as base pay Pension = 50% of “salary” (or average salary)

The OIC has a salary around 90,000/year that is tax payer funded but his strategy is to bully then drag the borough through court (more funding from us) Markovich doesn’t get a pass on this either. He wasn’t the aggressor but he was present for the two audits where non-compliance was achieved, but still enacted another ordinance that is unauthorized by state laws and drafted by Yurchak that can’t seem to keep the borough out of lawsuits. Soberick, currently on council, is suing for these unauthorized benefits. Yes more of our money. Yet if anyone would take the time and read the audit, if the borough pays unauthorized benefits, they would be required to continue paying them with no state assistance towards the payments. That sounds fun.

So here it is…The Collective Bargaining agreement is what they want, not a law. Lansford needs to work with them and implement reasonable benefits that comply with the state law. Local agencies do not have the power to enact laws that differ from state statutes. Period. I could have saved the borough legal fees and printed these elusive documents for them, but they still would have to read them.

CASE LAW —Borough of Beaver v. Liston Pension benefits must be based on “regular compensation” Municipalities cannot artificially inflate pensions

Commonwealth v. Erie Police Pension Board Act 600 must be strictly followed Local actions (contracts, policies) cannot override the statute

City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBAs)cannot require benefits that violate statutory law Under Pennsylvania law, municipal police pensions are strictly governed by Act 600, and municipalities lack authority to expand pension benefits beyond what the statute permits. See Upper Providence Township v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. Courts have consistently held that pension benefits must be based on regular compensation and may not include artificially inflated or unauthorized earnings. See Borough of Beaver v. Liston. Moreover, collective bargaining agreements cannot authorize benefits that conflict with statutory limitations. See City of Philadelphia v. Fraternal Order of Police. Here, the inc