CLEARFIELD – The Suplizio problem continues for the City of DuBois.
Suspended City Manager John Fred “Herm” Suplizio was charged in March with various offenses for allegedly stealing up to $620,000, according to the Attorney General’s office who investigated his finances starting in 2014.
The city placed him on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the charges. Plans to do a buyout of his employment contract, or simply terminating him have all presented additional problems for DuBois.
At a hearing in August, it was announced that more charges are waiting to be filed against him before the end of the month.
But, after DuBois Magistrate David Meholick recused himself from the case, the AG’s office filed a motion to extend the time to file the new criminal complaint, which was granted, according to a court employee.
A new senior magistrate will be assigned to the case within 30 to 60 days and the charges filed after that.
On Aug. 16, the council discussed possibly paying him the amount due, according to the contract, which is in effect until March 2025.
On Friday, Jennifer Jackson, Elliot Gelfand and Mike Clement, filed a motion in Clearfield County Court for a preliminary injunction to stop the current city council from buying out Suplizio’s contract.
A temporary injunction was approved by President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman that same day.
At Monday night’s council meeting, a motion was made by Councilwoman Diane Bernardo to terminate Suplizio effective the end of the week, but this was voted down 2-2-1, according to a previous article.
In question at that time was the impact on the employee pension fund from which Suplizio could withdraw his funds. It was recommended they seek legal advice on how to proceed on that.
On Wednesday, a hearing was held on the injunction to allow Ammerman to decide if the injunction should be permanent, keeping the current “lame duck” council from giving Suplizio money until the new council members take office.
Both Jackson and Gelfand were the winners in the spring primaries due to write-in campaigns and are running for council, unopposed in November.
During the hearing, William A. Shaw Jr., attorney for Suplizio, argued that although the two candidates are currently unopposed, there is no guarantee that they will win because there is talk of a possible write-in campaign in opposition of them.
City Solicitor Toni Cherry presented case law regarding “lame duck” officials. In a Supreme Court case, it was ruled you can’t have an injunction just because the incoming council would act differently, she said.
“All case law supports that the council has a right to make decisions.”
She commented that the candidates want the privilege to “punish Mr. Suplizio” and called this attempt to interfere with the city’s operations “truly shocking.”
Ammerman asked why the city didn’t want to wait for the outcome of the criminal case before making these decisions.
Cherry responded that the city has done its own investigation and found nothing.
She argued the motion for an injunction cites “irreparable harm” if Suplizio is paid, but there is nothing to this claim.
Thomas Breth, one of the attorneys who filed the motion, noted that the taxpayers are concerned about the money involved and are questioning the authority of the city to have a 10-year contract.
He alluded to $270,000 in legal fees paid by the city. A victim doesn’t pay fees to someone accused of embezzling funds, he said.
“They are acting outside their authority” and the injunction is to make sure the council obeys PA law.
Cherry explained that the legal fees were to prepare city employees for testifying before the grand jury in the investigation.
She stated that Suplizio says he is innocent and there is no record of money missing.
“The charges are frankly baseless.”
Mayor Edward Walsh was called to testify regarding the history of the 10-year contract, which was signed by him and other council members in March of 2015.
Suplizio was paid $5,000 a month for the city manager position, $24,000/year for his work with the water department and another $24,000/year for the sewage department, he said.
If terminated, the city would owe all of those wages plus money for any unused vacation or sick days.
Breth presented a letter sent to council by the Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development listing $123,750 in funding they provided to the city to do an independent forensic audit because “it believes that financial accuracy and accountability is a critical next step for stabilizing the consolidation (with Sandy Township) and rebuilding public trust.”
They also express concerns about the council negotiating a buyout of Suplizio’s contract and agrees with “a pause” on this potential action until council can “gather more information and to examine the consequences thereof.”
Sandy Township also has pending litigation regarding the planned consolidation with DuBois City. Cherry mentioned a hearing on that will be in October.
Walsh further explained that the legal fees paid by the city were for individual counsel for employees and were presented as invoices, then approved for payment by the council.
When Breth asked about $93,000 given to the city after the charges were filed against Suplizio, Cherry objected first to the relevance and then to hearsay information regarding the source since Walsh was not involved.
During her cross-examination, Cherry supplied reports on the city’s finances that indicate that currently the city is in “very good shape.”
Shaw asked Walsh if the city has assets of $4.5 million and Walsh corrected him saying it is more than $3.5 million.
“This was all done by the stewardship of Herm Suplizio?” he asked and Walsh agreed.
It was also noted that DuBois City has not raised their taxes for 13 years while Suplizio was the manager.
As the court ran out of time for the hearing, Ammerman stated that there are “a lot of loose ends to deal with” in this situation. For now, the temporary injunction will remain in effect.
A continuation of the hearing will be scheduled after it is determined how much time is needed to complete testimony. The judge will make a decision on making the injunction permanent after that.
For the full story on the original charges, click here.