(7/30) Liberty Township officials voted in opposition of pursuing civil action against past Secretary/Treasurer LeeEsta Shaffer during their June 19 Board of Supervisors workshop meeting. Residents spoke out against the decision at the July 3 regular Board meeting, which was well attended by members of the community.

The June 19 workshop meeting was mostly empty, with very few residents in attendance, but Supervisors Bob Jackson and John Bostek still chose to vote on the topic of filing a civil lawsuit against Shaffer. Back in May, Supervisors moved to authorize special counsel Zachary Mills to file a claim to the bonding companies Cincinnati Bond Company and Travelers Bond Company for a total amount of losses at approximately $278,000. Residents were on board with this decision, which has been two years in the making; however, they were still hoping that the township would file civil action against Shaffer for the losses she cost the taxpayers of the community.

Supervisor Jackson made a motion at the June 19 meeting not to pursue civil action against Shaffer, simply stating that the bonding company may see the action and hold their decision until after the civil lawsuit is complete, which could potentially extend the entire process for several more months. Bostek agreed and a vote was taken, 2-1 with Barlow against.

Later, during the July meeting, residents questioned the Supervisors’ decision in regards to not taking civil action. Township Solicitor John Lisko stepped in and urged Supervisors to be cautious about what they say concerning the Shaffer lawsuit, and advised them not to mention any specific reasons for their decision. Anything brought out against that case could be seen as a weakness in the eyes of the bonding company, according to Lisko.

However, Lisko did mention that there were many reasons that went into the decision, specifically mentioning the significant cost of legal fees. Litigation expenses really add up and could cost the township tens of thousands of dollars, Lisko said, noting Shaffer may not be able to make restitution anyway. As Lisko noted, Shaffer does not have many assets. She does have a home, which was a point brought up by residents, however, she owns that home with her husband. In Pennsylvania a judgment would need to be taken of both homeowners, and in this case, Shaffer’s husband had nothing to do with Shaffer’s fraudulent behavior.

Mills also mentioned that the decision not to pursue civil action against Shaffer does not disallow the township to recoup the full losses sought from the bond companies.

According to both Lisko and Mills, the decision not to file a civil lawsuit won’t affect the lawsuit with the bonding company. Also, if the bonding company decides not to give the township the full amount they can go after Shaffer themselves, stated Lisko.

Mills is currently waiting on the bond companies to make their offers. Once the offers are made, the board will then be faced with making a decision to either accept the amount offered or try to recover the full amount by taking civil action against Shaffer.

One resident, Bob Keilholtz told the Supervisors that he was disappointed in their decision not to pursue civil action against Shaffer. He believes that taking action against her, even if it is costly, would be well worth it, considering the amount of money Shaffer cost the taxpayers of the township. Supervisors made no comments in response to his statements.

Resident Donna Powers followed the discussion by asking for an update on the criminal charges against Shaffer. Mills told residents that he has spoken to the District Attorney and provided all documentation that he had. The evidence and case is now in the hands of the District Attorney, stated Mills. Any updates will be presented as they come in.