---
# System prepended metadata

title: 003 Supporting Documents
tags: [LegalCase]

---

---
header-includes:
- \usepackage{pdfpages}
- \usepackage{graphicx}
- \usepackage{hyperref}
- \usepackage{longtable}
- \usepackage{needspace}
- \usepackage{soul}
---

# Supporting Documents





## County Branches of Govt

### Scenario Overview

This document provides an overview of a situation in Lehigh County, PA, where County Executive Armstrong attempted to block Controller Pinsley from releasing a report consistent with his official duties by slashing his budget as an admitted scare tactic. It details the power struggle that ensued among the different branches of local government.

### Lehigh County Government Structure

| Row Offices                           | Executive Office                     | Legistlative Office                                | Judicial                     |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------|------------------------------|---|
| 6 Row Elected officals                | 1 Elected Offical                    | 9 Commissioners                                    | Judges and District Attorney |   |
| Controller is one of the row officers | This is like the president of county | this is like the house and sentate but in one body |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      |                                                    |                              |   |
| Controller Mark PInsley               | Executive Phil Armstrong             | (D) Chairman Geoff   Brace District: 4             |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (R) Vice-Chairman Jeffrey Dutt District:   5       |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      |                                                    |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (R) Antonio Pineda District: 1                     |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (D) Bob Elbich District: At-Large                  |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (D) Dan Hartzell District: At-Large                |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (D) Dave Harrington District: At-Large             |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (R) Ron Beitler District: 2                        |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (D) Zach Cole-Borghi District: 3                   |                              |   |
|                                       |                                      | (D) Zakiya Smalls District: At-Large               |                              |   | |   |

\pagebreak

#### Pictures of Elected Officials



\begin{longtable}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{People} & \textbf{People} \\
\hline
\endfirsthead
\hline
\textbf{People} & \textbf{People} \\
\hline
\endhead
\endfoot
\endlastfoot

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Controller Mark Pinsley \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-TkzoIq.png}
\end{minipage} & 
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Executive Phil Armstrong \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-cYnDSy.png}
\end{minipage} \\
\hline

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Chairman Geoff Brace \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-XBevfY.png}
\end{minipage} & 
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Vice Chair Jeff Dutt \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-ptIEnp.png}
\end{minipage} \\
\hline

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Antonio Pinedoa \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-ZnWfFg.png}
\end{minipage} & 
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Bob Elbich \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-EPTvNN.png}
\end{minipage} \\
\hline

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Dan Hartzel \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-DTqrZG.png}
\end{minipage} & 
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner David Harrington \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-tGVvEe.png}
\end{minipage} \\
\hline

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Ron Beitler \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-iyDSEr.png}
\end{minipage} & 
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Zach Cole-Borghi \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-pqypde.png}
\end{minipage} \\
\hline

\begin{minipage}[t]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
Commissioner Zakiya Smalls \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-Scdkqg.png}
\end{minipage} & \\
\hline
\end{longtable}






\pagebreak


### Key Players and Reporting Lines


![Partial Org Chart](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/93/b5/3d/93b53dd21cceef823ccbe35350947e6d.png)

**Philip Armstrong (Executive, Lehigh County)**:

- Ed Hozza (Deputy Administrator)
- Kay Achenbach (Director, Lehigh County Human Services)
- Rick Molchany (Director of General Services)
- **David Backenstoe (County Solicitor)**
    - Kerry Freidl (Assistant Solicitor - Solicitor that is the Head of Children and Youth)
    - Jennifer Michener (Legal Assistant) 
    - Eman Jarrah (Deputy Solicitor)
    - Catharine Roseberry (Senior Attorney)
- **Tim Reeves (Chief Fiscal Officer)**
     - Karen Carrano-Miller (Lead Accountant)

**Mark Pinsley (Controller, Lehigh County)**:

- Nanton Johns (Deputy Controller, Lehigh County)
- Michelle Hobel (Operations Manager)
- Matt Mobilio (Outside Counsel)

\pagebreak

### Sequence of Events

In Lehigh County Pennsylvania, a dynamic power struggle unfolds among three elected officials **Controller Mark Pinsley**, **Executive Armstrong**, and **Vice Chairman Commissioner Dutt**.

- **Controller Mark Pinsley** (row office) is an elected official intent on publishing a significant report that could potentially stir the waters of the county's political scene.

- **Executive Armstrong** is an elected official who did not want the report published and is trying to punish Pinsley for doing so. He controls the budget of other elected officials, including Controller Pinsley.

- **Vice Chairman Commissioner Dutt** is an elected official who did not want the report published and is trying to punish Pinsley for doing so. He is part of a nine-member board that has the power to vote on budget allocations, playing a decisive role in the financial maneuvering within the county’s administration.


### Controller Pinsley's Planned Report

1. Controller Pinsley, an elected Row Officer, conducted an investigation into the diagnoses of child abuse within the county.

2. The findings were compiled into a report titled "The Cost of Misdiagnosis," highlighting issues and financial implications associated with potential misdiagnoses.

3. The report originally identified a specific doctor and hospital involved in child removals from homes following abuse diagnoses. However the report was changed so that it did not identify the specific doctor or hospital and allowed the parents affected to do so. The report's focus was on the costs associated to the county due to misdiagnois.

4. Lehigh County's solicitor and Children & Youth caseworkers were also mentioned. When removing a child from their home the solicator and case workers approval are required.

5. The report had the potential to implicate both local government and medical institutions.

6. Executive Armstrong, and the board were informed of the report. Armstrong along with others took steps to prevent its release due to concerns about potential implications.


### The Budget Slash:

\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{People} & \textbf{People} \\
\hline
Executive Phil Armstrong & Controller Mark Pinsley \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-cYnDSy.png} & 
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-TkzoIq.png} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}



1. Executive Armstrong learns of Controller Pinsley's intentions to release the report. He may fear that it could potentially impact the county due to lawsuits or perhaps he was concerned about the reputation of the largest employer in the area - the Lehigh Valley Hospital.

2. In response, Armstrong decides to slash Pinsley’s budget for the upcoming 2024 fiscal year as a strategic move to potentially deter the release of the report.

3. The budget cut specifically targets two employees, including a key administrator, in Pinsley’s department, marking them for termination/layoff. They were the last two individuals hired.

4. To execute this decision, Armstrong contacts Chief Fiscal Officer Tim Reeves, who reports directly to him, instructing the fiscal officer to remove the last two people hired in Pinsley's department. This is an unusal method as the Executive does not have the authority to make hiring decisions. Normally the exectuvie would simply reduce the budget and allow the Controller to allocate the budget as theydeem appropriate.

5. At a subsequent point in time, Reeves discloses to Pinsley that he had suggested an alternative approach to Armstrong. Rather than specifically terminating two employees, Reeves had proposed a general budget reduction, giving Pinsley the flexibility to manage the cuts as he deemed fit. However, Armstrong rejects this alternative proposal, insisting on the termination of the specific employees.



#### Chairman Geoff Brace & Vice Chair Jeff Dutt's Role:  


\vspace{1cm} % Adjust the space as needed

\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{People} & \textbf{People} \\
\hline
Chairman Geoff Brace & Vice Chair Jeff Dutt \\
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-XBevfY.png} & 
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{media/qownnotes-media-ptIEnp.png} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}





1. Executive Armstrong is aware that the budetary process allows Controller Pinsley to appeal the reduced 2024 fiscal year budget.

2. In order to stop controller Pinsley from being able to rely on that process Armstrong engages either Chairman Geoff Brace or Vice Chair Dutt to secure support in maintaing a reduced budget for Pinsley. Their goal would be to call all of the board members to secure their vote.

3. It is unclear whether Armstrong contacts Brace who then delegates to Vice Chair Jeff Dutt as Brace was on vacation, or if Armstrong directly engages Dutt. (Nov 8th update: At the board meeting Brace says he was always in touch with the board. When asked if he was aware of the two positions. He said he would need to check his notes. Dutt admits he was aware of the two people)

4. Dutt is tasked with assessing the board members’ positions on the budget cuts.

5. The objective is to understand the likelihood of Pinsley's success in appealing the budget reduction.

6. Department heads have a procedural right to appeal if their proposed budgets are revised.

7. Armstrong’s actions are preemptive measures aiming to understand and potentially influence the board’s decision ahead of Pinsley’s formal appeal.


#### Controller Pinsley's Concession:

Feeling the pressure and imminent impact of the budget cut, plus the pressure from his employees, Controller Pinsley announces the suspension of the report’s release. This leads Executive Armstrong to restore Controller Pinsley's budget, reinstating the budget for the two targeted employees.

After this happens, Pinsley goes to speak with the Chief Fiscal Officer and ensure that his budget has been put back in place. It was. 

#### Controller Pinsley's Strategy: 

Controller Pinsley is aware that the budget will go to print shortly. He waits for the budget to go to the printer. Once that happens he issues the report. His assumption is that once the report goes to print, it will be difficult to cut the budget and not look like it is retaliatory.

### Needed Depositions to tell the story

* Executive Phil Armstrong - He is the one that would have needed to order the change of the budget
* Chief Fiscal Officer, Tim Reeves - He original told Deputy Controller Nanton Johns that the budget had been cut by two people. He later informed Pinsley that the budget was reinstated
* Lead Accountant, Karen Carrano-Miller  - She works for Tim Reeves and would have made the cuts to the budget. Nanton also spoke with her on the same day and she confirmed the cuts had happened

* Vice Chair Jeff Dutt - he made the calls to make sure that the commissioners agreed to not reinstante the budget

* Frank Kane - Rick Mulchany suggested that Frank Kane was involved at least in terms of the veto of Pinsley's budget

* Rick Mulchany, admiitted he was in the coversations at least in terms of the veto of Pinsley's budget

* David Harrington - we know (because he told Pinsley) that Jeff Dutt had called him to talk about the budget of Pinsley's two employees. 

\pagebreak

##  Interactions with Solicitor on report Pre-Release
This section shows communications with the solicitor's office, specifically about "The Cost of Misdiagnosis" report in the period leading up to the report being issued.

Other communications during this timeframe were not directly about the report. Those other communications, which reflect efforts to communicate with commissioners and the solicitor's office to create resolutions showing care for the families, will be detailed in a separate document.

This document focuses solely on interactions with the solicitor's office about "The Cost of Misdiagnosis" report before it was released.

### Key Players

* David Backenstoe (Solicitor, Lehigh County):
	* Kerry Freidl (Assistant Solicitor - **Solicitor that is the Head of Children and Youth**)
  	* Catharine Roseberry (Senior Attorney)
 
* Mark Pinlsey (Controller, Lehigh County)
	* Nanton Johns (Deputy Controller, Lehigh County)
 	* Joseph Buick (Assistant Deputy Controller, Lehigh County)	

Note: The Solicitor's office has many internal clients

- The controller  
- The commissioners  
- The Executive  
- The Jail  
- The Sheriff  
- Amount others  

The issue with this is that they must let us know when there is a conflict. You will see that Catherine Roseberry was CCed or a part of the correspondence telling me that I am Ultra Veris. She later was the spokesperson for CYS, saying that the report was one-sided.

\pagebreak

### Events of  - June 14th - Learn about CYS process

- Nanton Johns, Mark Pinsley, Joe Buick, David Backenstoe, and Kerry Friedl convened for an in-person meeting. Kerry, serving as the head solicitor at Children and Youth, was instrumental to our aim of unraveling the procedural intricacies and timelines associated with the removal of a child from a caregiver’s supervision.
- During the meeting, Kerry’s candor was evident. He was forthcoming and clearly explained the removal process, contributing significantly to our understanding.
- The discussion deepened when Pinsley introduced Jenssen's name into the conversation. Kerry was not unfamiliar with Jenssen; he had been involved in a defense case related to her. He asserted that he sought a second opinion from a psychologist during the case. However, an investigation by Pinsley later unveiled that the second opinion was obtained not from a psychologist but from another Child Abuse Pediatrician, a professional specialized in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of abuse or neglect in children.
- Later, as Kerry responded to LSRs, Pinsley began to suspect that Kerry was conflicted.  On Monday, August 7th, Pinsley wrote a letter to David Backenstoe to shed light on the case Kerry had referenced and the corrected information.

### Events of  - July 5th - Pinsley wants to confirm families story asks about Legal Transcript of Sleltz Case

- Controller Pinsley informed Solicitor Dave Backenstoe's office about the commencement of a report.
- The specific inquiry was made to obtain a full transcript of the Kim Stelz case (also known as the Orion Case), aiming to verify the information provided in the case.
- The goal at this juncture was to corroborate the information shared by Kim Stelz to ensure accuracy and comprehensiveness.
  \includepdf[pages=2,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Correspondence with Lehigh County Attorneys.pdf}

### Events of  - July 18th - Pinsley states concern about Solicator Conflict

- A letter was sent to Dave Backenstoe, expressing concerns about his intention to use Michael Vargo, a solicitor primarily affiliated with Children and Youth Services (CYS), raising potential conflict of interest issues.
- The realization of how closely Kerry Friedl was associated with CYS was not yet evident, pointing out that even he should have declared a conflict of interest. You will see that on Monday Augst 7th I came across a file that showed information about a case that Friedl potentially worked on. This showed he knew about Jenssen and once again should have recused himself. 
- This correspondence addressed this perceived conflict, seeking clarity and ethical handling of the situation.
  \includepdf[pages=3,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Correspondence with Lehigh County Attorneys.pdf}

### Events of  - July 18th to 21st - Legal Services Requests Sent

- Several Legal Service Requests (LSRs) were sent to the law department between these dates.
- These LSRs were particularly focused on the Orion case, aiming to understand what could be included in the report's attachments and obtain a copy of the court case that Orion held.
  \includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{01 LSR.pdf}

### Events of  - August 1st - Pinsley makes suggestion about possible resolutions.
-  Pinsley sent an email separate from most of these correspondences; getting the board to put together resolutions is more specific. They are not attached, but the letter is generally about
1. **Consultation Requirement:** CYS should seek advice from an external expert, excluding Dr. Jenssen or her team, for cases involving the indication or removal of children from homes.
2. **Communication and Investigation:** The Lehigh Board of Commissioners should authorize a formal communication to LVHN’s CEO, demanding an investigation into all Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy diagnoses and related cases from the last five years, specifically those involving Dr. Jenssen. A neutral third party should conduct the investigations, the findings of which will be made public. LVHN should bear all costs, including a $250,000 allocation for COL's exclusive use.
3. **Case Assessment:** The Department of Human Services Director is tasked with identifying an assessor for the cases and obtaining three price quotes, allowing the board to decide the next steps.
4. **Policy Review:** A directive for the DA to ensure that no single physician, particularly Dr. Jenssen, can undermine a detective’s authority, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations despite any single diagnosis.
5. **Case Scrutiny:** The Executive will review cases forwarded to the Pennsylvania Board of Appeals within three weeks to conserve resources and aid families, given the high case reversal rate.
In the glossary, "Indicated Status" is explained as a label CYS uses when substantial evidence of abuse is found, while "Unfounded Status" is used when inadequate evidence supports abuse claims.
\includepdf[pages=2-3,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Correspondence Regarding Resolutions.pdf}

### Events of  - August 1st Continued - Backenstoe states he is not in agreement about Resolutions
- David Backenstoe's response to Pinsley's email
- David acknowledges receiving Mark's email and attachments, including multiple draft resolutions. The Department of Law expresses concerns about Mark’s approach to the investigation. They express concern for:
- Dr. Jennsen’s civil, procedural due process, and First Amendment rights, possible defamation claims, and potential liability concerning LVHN
  \includepdf[pages=4,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Correspondence Regarding Resolutions.pdf}

### Events of August 1 Continue
- Based on this mishmash of
- Civil,
- procedural due process,
- First Amendment rights,
- possible defamation claims,
- and potential liability
- Pinsley response
  \includepdf[pages=6,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Correspondence Regarding Resolutions.pdf}

### Events - August 9th Response to LSR from Legal

- A response to the LSR accused Pinsley of being "Ultra Veris." A critical issue here was that the solicitor, who primarily works for CYS, had not reviewed the main body of the report but only the attachments.
- These attachments included cases where judges criticized the doctor's performance. Despite this, the solicitor appeared to side with the doctor or perhaps the county instead of the controller, raising concerns of bias or misunderstanding.
  \includepdf[pages=1-7,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{02 Respons to Multiple LSR Soli to Pins Controller Memo 8-9-23.pdf}
  \includepdf[pages=15-32,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{02 Respons to Multiple LSR Soli to Pins Controller Memo 8-9-23.pdf}

### Events - August 11 - Pinsley Rebuttal to Legal 

- Pinsley took issue with the solicitor’s characterization of the attachments and responded with an email detailing his position, defending the integrity of the attachments and the overarching report.
  \includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{03 LEG.LET.2022.S.In response to LSRs.pdf}

### Events - August 16th - Solicator sends threatening letter trying to stop Pinsley from putting out report

- As the date of issuing the report approached, the solicitor's office sent an email and a memo. Pinsley was not statutorily required to send copies of his reports to the solicitor but had offered to do so as a gesture of transparency and cooperation.
- The email specifically directed Pinsley to share the memo with the entire staff, indicating potential legal issues.
- The memo reiterated the "Ultra Veris" label, insinuating potential legal actions without specifying the grounds, inciting anxiety among the staff.
- On the same day, Nanton Johns was told directly that two jobs, including a key administrator, were being cut from the next year’s budget. The targeted jobs were the last two hired in the department. The decision felt like a direct attack, a move made to punish or retaliate. The timing and specificity of the cuts made the intentions seem clear and malicious. 
  \includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{04 A - Email with Memo attached.pdf}
  \includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{04 B -Memo to Pinsley.pdf}

### Events August 17th - Staff and Budget Challenges

- The situation has escalated, leading to a lack of sleep for Pinsley due to ongoing concerns about the solicitor's claims and the necessity to support the staff and the affected families.
- Several families are coming from various locations including Virginia, Colorado, and Massachusetts. Some of these families were personally invovled with Jenssen, others were family members of the families that wer impacted.
- On the night of the 16th, Pinsley drafted three letters. The first two requests staff members to provide written statements to Pinsley. One letter says that the staff member had no interaction with the report. The other letter said the staff member had limited interaction with the report. The third is a response from Pinsley, acknowledging the receipt of their statements and confirming the assumption of full responsibility for the situation.
- A meeting is held at 8:30 a.m. on August 17th, where the staff's concerns are voiced. As a result, a previously scheduled press conference is canceled, and attendance at an upcoming board meeting is declined
-  Anxiety among the staff is high. The Solicitor's legal memo and the reduced staff moving into next year have created a lot of emotion. Two of my managers asked me not to put out the report that the staff should come first. That we should try some other way, or we should try another process.
- In the end, Pinsley agrees to speak with the parents.
- He immediately calls the parents and explains the situation. They agree that everything should be canceled.
- **Pinsley calls Backenstoe and others, letting them know that the press conference and board meeting are canceled and that the report has been postponed**
  \includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Letter to and from Pinsley.pdf}

### Events August 18 - Pinsley checks on budget
- Pinsely comes in and goes to fiscal to see what is happening with his employees
- Pinsley is told that the two employees are being put back in the budget

### Events from August 18 - 22 - Pinsley begins to seek outside council
- The standard protocol for securing an external lawyer is initiated (documentation detailing this process can be provided upon request).
- Typically, this procedure unfolds over 14 days, involving various stages of approval and verification.
- Pinsley, however, harbors concerns of undisclosed activities transpiring clandestinely.
- In response, he engages Matt Mobilio to explore the possibility of proceeding without a formal contract, aiming to amend the document expediently over the weekend.
- Exclusively, Mobilio is privy to Pinsley's unwavering intention to disseminate the report on Wednesday.
- Mobilio and Pinsley dedicate the weekend to refining the report, leaving room for minor adjustments anticipated in the following week.
- Pinsley consistently liaises with the fiscal department to confirm the retention of personnel in the budget.
- He reaches out to the affected families, saying if they can still come together, he will unveil the report on the 23rd.

### Events of August 23 - Pinsley waits, send out report after budget goes to print
- The budget is slated for publication on this day.
- Pinsley, awaiting confirmation it has gone to print. Once it does, he informs Backenstoe of his decision to publicize the report publicly.
- He also announces the impending press conference.
- Backenstoe, in response, implores Pinsley to reconsider releasing the report, advocating for a postponement.
- Undeterred, Pinsley reaffirms his stance – the report's release is not open for negotiation; it will proceed as planned.

### Events of August 31st, 2023:

- During a County Commissioners budget meeting, John Faulk questioned Edward Hozza about being involved with the attempt to eliminate positions from Pinsley's office budget.

### Events of September 8th, 2023:

- Pinsley has chance encunter with Commissioner David Harrington in the parkling lot of the government center.
- Durring the conversation Harrington tells Pinsley that he recieved a phone call from Commissioner Jeff Dutt.
-   Commissioner Dutt contacted Commissioner Harrington. 
-   Previously, two staff positions had been cut from Pinsley's budget.
-   There would be an upcoming public budget meeting where Pinsley could request changes. 
-   At this meeting, Pinsley could ask for the two eliminated staff positions to be added back into his budget.
-   In advance of the meeting, Dutt wanted to explore Harrington's response to reducing Pinsley's budget and how Harrington would vote if Pinsley requested changes to reinstate his people.
-   This interaction revealed to Harrington that multiple people were involved in trying to prevent Pinsley from releasing his report.
-   Harrington **saw** Dutt's request as **retaliation** against Pinsley for the report, and refused to be involved.
-   Dutt was facilitating these calls because Commissioner Brace was away on vacation.
-   This indicated either Brace or Armstrong had asked Dutt to make the calls. 
-   Based on Harrington's account, Pinsley was uncertain if Armstrong had first tried to reach Brace about the budget reduction. 
-   Pinsley was also unsure if Brace then asked Dutt to secure support, or if Armstrong contacted Dutt directly.


### Events of September 12, 2023:

- Pinsley saw Ed Hozza in the hallway when leaving for lunch. Pinsley asked Ed about the budget cut. Hozza, after initial denial, admitted to having knowledge. Ed told Pinsley that he went to Phil suggesting that he not cut people's budget. It is onething to go after Pinsley, it is another to fire people who are not involved in this
- Armstrong told Hozza that the budget cut was a **"scare tactic."**

\pagebreak


## Attempt to hire outside Solicator


### Key Players Involved 

**Philip Armstrong (Executive, Lehigh County)**:

- David Backenstoe (County Solicitor)
  - Kerry Friedl (Assistant Solicitor)
  - Jennifer Michener (Legal Assistant) 
  - Eman Jarrah (Deputy Solicitor)

**Mark Pinsley (Controller, Lehigh County)**:

- Nanton Johns (Deputy Controller, Lehigh County)
- Michelle Hobel (Operations Manager)
- Matt Mobilio (Outside Counsel)

\newpage


### Concerns

The Controller had early concerns that the County Solicitor's office was not adequately assisting him and appeared to be protecting the doctor and hospital instead.

### Backenstoe's Stance on Outside Counsel 

Early in Backenstoe's career as County Solicitor, he indicated that if the Controller fully replaced him with outside counsel, his office would no longer assist with non-adversarial matters like:

- Employee policies
- Charter compliance
- Other general legal questions

This differs from other counties where the Controller has both the County Solicitor for general needs and their own Solicitor when at odds internally. 

### Controller's Concerns Mid-July  

- The Controller worried he was not getting the legal services needed from the County Solicitor.

- He was getting information back that seemed aimed at preventing release of his planned report.

- It felt like the solicitor's office was trying to protect Children and Youth Services or perhaps protect themselves.

- As part of removing children from parents, the solicitor's office has to legally sign off and approve the removals. In some cases related to the report, they had signed off on removals the Controller believed were unwarranted based on information he had.

### Goal in Using Outside Counsel

- The Controller wanted to specifically use Matt Mobilio based on prior experience. 

- The goal was for Mobilio to review the report "The Cost of Misdiagnosis" and suggest edits to ensure the Controller was not overstepping or defaming.

### Reasons for Not Fully Replacing  Solicator

- Because of Backenstoe's stance, the Controller avoided fully replacing him so as not to lose access to services not requiring outside counsel.

- The County Solicitor also represented Children and Youth Services, the target of the report.

The following pages show the beginning of this process. The Controller was still working with internal counsel, while also trying to bring on Matt Mobilio. 

\newpage

\includepdf[pages=1-15,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Mobilio Correspondence.pdf}


### Transitioning to Matt Mobilio as Solicitor

- The Controller had publicly released the report on August 23rd. 

- Mobilio unofficially agreed to work with the Controller from August 18th-23rd to review and edit the report, despite not yet having an approved contract. 

- The Controller's office had been trying to formally hire Mobilio as outside counsel since July 27th, nearly a month earlier.

- During the 18th-23rd period, Mobilio made many changes to "The Cost of Misdiagnosis" report. 

- On August 28th, over a month after starting the process to hire Mobilio, the Controller asked to officially appoint him as solicitor to prevent the Board from interfering with or blocking Mobilio's work.
\includepdf[pages=16-23,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Mobilio Correspondence.pdf}



### Controller Unable to Hire Matt Mobilio Due to Insurance Requirements

On September 5th, the Controller first learned that Matt Mobilio would need to increase his insurance coverage to be hired by the County. The cost of this insurance increase was higher than what Mobilio's services would have cost. 

Mobilio indicated he would drop the matter and absorb the costs already incurred. However, the Controller still needed outside counsel and did not accept this outcome.

The County Charter grants the Controller the right to appoint any solicitor. If the administration had issues with insurance requirements, they should resolve those and make a payment so Mobilio could afford the increase. This should not be the Controller's problem.

The Controller had several discussions with the Solicitor's office. They acknowledged the Controller's absolute right to hire Mobilio, but said there was no process to do so unless he purchased more insurance. 

Mobilio did not believe he would be compensated even if he bought the insurance, as his appointment would still need Commissioner approval in 14 days. 

The Controller maintained this insurance issue was improperly preventing him from exercising his Charter right to outside counsel. The administration should address the insurance constraints so as not to infringe on the Controller's lawful authority.

I even asked the administration to provide a 20 day time period prior to the insurance being requried so that I would be able to pay Mobilio. They would not do that, nor would they allow any time period prior to the hiring of Mobilio

### From Home Rule Charter

### § 407. County Solicitor.
> (a) The County Solicitor shall be the chief legal officer and attorney for the County government except for the office of the Controller in the event he or she appoints his or her own solicitor. He or she shall have such powers, duties and authority as are given by the Charter, by law or by ordinance. No other official or agency shall employ other legal counsel except as may be permitted by law or by the Charter without the approval of the Board. The County Solicitor shall appoint assistant solicitors in such numbers and at such salaries as shall be fixed by the Board. The County Solicitor and each assistant solicitor shall be duly admitted to the practice of law in the 
>
>Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the time of his or her appointment and throughout the term of his or her office and shall accept no fees for the performance of their duties other than their salaries as fixed by the Board. The County Solicitor shall have the right to inspect at reasonable times the records of any office, authority, department, commission, board or committee of the County in connection with the performance of his or her powers and duties. 

>The amendment of this section in 1997 shall be effective on January 1, 1998.(b) With the approval of the County Executive and the Board, the County Solicitor may retain special counsel for a particular proceeding.

### § 503. Controller.
> The Controller shall examine the records, files, and procedures pertaining to the receipt and expenditures of County funds by all officers, agents, and employees of the County and all agencies thereof, to determine if they are in accordance with law, and the provisions of this Charter. Immediately on discovery of any irregularity, default or delinquency, the Controller shall report the same to the Board and to the Executive for prosecution as may be warranted; and the Controller shall take immediate measures, including action in the appropriate court if deemed appropriate by him or her, to secure or recover any public monies or property belonging to, owing, or due the County. The Controller shall audit the accounts of other public officers, offices and agencies, and any accounts of other public monies, in the manner prescribed by State laws requiring such audits by controllers in counties of Lehigh County’s classification functioning without home rule charters; or, in the absence of such laws, by State laws relating to controllers in counties having populations most closely equal to that of Lehigh County. The Controller shall not be required to audit the County’s General Purpose Financial Statement or the financial statements of any County Government Agencies if he or she serves on the governing body of the agency by virtue of holding the office of Controller. 
>
>The Controller shall perform such other powers, duties and authority as are given by this Charter, by law or by ordinance of the Board. ==The Controller shall have the power to appoint assistants, clerks, **a solicitor** and other personnel required for the conduct of his or her office, in such numbers and job classifications and at such salaries as shall be fixed by the Board.== 
>
>Source
The provisions of §503 amended May 20, 1986, effective June 4, 1986

\includepdf[pages=24-34,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Mobilio Correspondence.pdf}



### Pushing for Mobilio to Buy Insurance 

- The Solicitor advised the Controller to have Mobilio purchase the additional insurance coverage. 

- Before agreeing to this, the Controller wanted to ensure Mobilio had a current contract writen by legal that Mobilio agreed to. 

- This situation is complicated by the fact that Mobilio doesn't trust the administration and doesn't want to buy the additional insurance until he is assured he will get payment.

- The Controller continued asking the Administration to waive the insurance requirement, but they claimed to be speaking to the insurance provider Travelers to request a waiver. 

- The Controller had not been included in any of that correspondence and saw no evidence it was occurring. He felt this should not be taking so long to resolve.

- The Controller maintained that purchasing the insurance should not be a prerequisite to exercising his lawful Charter authority to appoint outside counsel. The insurance constraint seemed improper and unduly burdensomegiven that Matt Mobilio maintains liability insurnce consistent with state gidelines.

\includepdf[pages=35-61,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{Mobilio Correspondence.pdf}

### Current Status
As of September 29th, the Controller still has not been able to officially appoint Matt Mobilio as his solicitor. 

He is still waiting for Deputy Administrator Hozza to respond on whether Travelers insurance will waive the coverage requirement or provide a timeline.

The Controller is preparing to write a personal check to Mobilio to cover the insurance cost and then seek reimbursement. 

However, the Controller remains concerned the Commissioners or Executive may still try to obstruct Mobilio from formally becoming the approved solicitor, even if the insurance issue is resolved. 

The core issue of the Controller's Charter right to outside counsel remains unsettled.

### Additions to add

- Pinsley was notifed on October 30th that his request for an additiona 10,000 was vetoed by Armstrong
- On October 31st Pinsley emails Rick Mulchany saying "You wrote this pretty well." Speaking about the reasoning that was put into the veto
- On the same day Rick wrote back

>Mark:  not me...  This was Frank and Phil...  I just offered my opinion on how to assist you with the Solicitor position, while we monitor the expenses, and provide for a better and more accurate budget in 2025.
>
>At no point am I saying the Solicitor position isn’t needed, and in fact, we have had a Controller Office Solicitor in the past. 
>
> I support your need for the Solicitor, but have to say, I’d prefer to handle this in the normal budget review process.  Also, we’ve committed to funding your position. 
>
>All good on my end...
>
>Rick

- This email further indicates that Frank Kane was also involved in the process.

- November 9 2023
- Pinsley sent the board a message stating they should not have the second reading of the Highmark contract as it will cost the county millions of dollars

\includepdf[pages=-,frame=true,scale=.8,pagecommand={}]{05 Email to Commissioners Highmark - Bill 2023-51.pdf}

![Count RFP for Medical Provider](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/36/ff/95/36ff95d4676b417c48426792257e8590.png)


- Furthmore Jeff Dutt put together a motion trying to stop Pinsley from hiring an outside consultant. This is the only motion put forward in this regard. To be clear, first Mr Dutt went to Armstrong to veto the budget then second, he attempted to cut $2k from a line item that was already approved by saying "this is not in the best interest of the county". Mr Dutt could not provide any reasoning for this attempt to cut the budget. He just choose to do so, in what looks like attempted retaliation.

According to Lehigh Valley New "Commissioner Jeffrey Dutt, who voted against increasing the controller’s legal budget, had encouraged Armstrong to consider vetoing it."

Further indicating targeting
https://www.lehighvalleynews.com/lehigh-county/controller-hits-out-at-lehigh-county-executive-over-legal-budget-veto

