The President of the Lower Merion School Council claims that the Judge of Montgomery unjustly removed her from a democratic basic vote regarding the omission of disclosure of financial information – arguing that she was not obliged to report a lease between the employer and the city of Philadelphia.
In the appeal abbreviation filed on Thursday to the Commonwealth Court, Kerry Sautner, president and general director of the state of the State, said that she had no shares in the museum, and therefore did not have to disclose the lease agreement in her nominational petition.
She also said that a member of the community who challenged her petition, Harshal of the Road, did not objected specifically in the eastern state, when for the first time she accused the summary of incomplete financial disclosure – but later she raised this issue in a letter to court. Sautner said that the argument was issued too overdue and should not be taken into account.
The dispute to vote injected uncertainty to the school board race as a Sautner – which was supported by the Dolny Democratic Committee and Narberth – fights to regain his place in voting before the election on May 20.
The Electoral Council of Montgomery said in the previous court that he had to finalize the list of candidates for Thursday to prepare for the election “without having to act within excessively burdensome schedules and an unjustified increase in workforce.”
Commissioner of Montgomery, Neil Makhija, chairman of the Electoral Council, said on Thursday that “although we anticipate the decision of the Court of the Nations Community, our election service team is currently preparing for both results” – and that the unit “will” be able to go forward immediately to get voting in the hands of voters. “
“The broader problem remains that the deadlines set by state law in Pennsylvania are honestly impossible to poviats,” Machija said, noting that legislators did not update the times of voting challenges to consider post voting. “Until the legislator looks at the election process from beginning to end – from the dates of petition to the deadlines – from time to time we are in this position.”
Sautner submitted a nominational petition on March 10. He was questioned on March 18 by Dear, a registered Democrat, who in an interview said that she thought that the school councils in Pennsylvania “pushed the political program”, although she did not make specific allegations regarding the Lower Merion council.
The road – represented by the GOP lawyer and the leader of the branch Philadelphia Matthew Wolfe and a member of the Republican State Committee Christian Petrucci – he noted that Sautner did not answer a few questions about financial disclosures about her petition, leaving them empty, not checking “no”.
»Read more: The judge threw out the president of the Lower Merion school council from voting after skipping the financial disclosure
Among them was a question that asks candidates to disclose “all direct or indirect interests in real estate that was sold or rented or rented or rented, from the community of nations or any of its subordinates.”
A judge of the universal Montgomery Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio, who issued a decision of March 31, kicking a summary of voting, said in the community of nations in court that although she gave Sautner a chance to change the petition, the candidate still did not check “any” in terms of real estate.
“This suggests a deliberate avoidance of ensuring the final answer to this question,” said Carluccio.
In his appeal on Thursday, which was made by the lawyers of Dilworth Paxson Timothy Ford and Maggie Barker Taylor, Sautner said that she should have changed her petition.
She also said that despite the instruction of the form, the law does not require candidates to state that they have no financial interests – just to disclose them.
After the interrogation of March 24 regarding the challenge of Dear, Sautner said that she had asked the employee’s contribution regarding the submission of a changed petition. Last week, she also submitted another changed petition in which she answered “no” to the question about interest on real estate.
“There is simply no evidence that Mrs. Sautner made a deliberate misleading in a bad faith with the intention of cheating the electorate,” says her appeal.
