Case Name: Raynovich, Appellant, v. Romanus
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1973-01-19
Citations: 450 Pa. 391
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 107
Parties: Raynovich, Appellant, v. Romanus.
Judges: Before Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 450
Pages: 391–405

Head Matter:
Raynovich, Appellant, v. Romanus.
Argued September 25,1972.
Before Eagen, O’Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix and Manderino, JJ.
George Raynovich, Jr., in propria persona, with him Stone & Raynovich, for appellant.
J ohn R. Luke, with him Luke & Dempsey, for appellee.
January 19,1973:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Roberts,
This Quo Warranto proceeding challenges the validity of the borough councilmanic election of one of its members to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor. The appellant, George Raynovich, Jr., initiated the action alleging voting improprieties in the election of appel lee, John T. Romanus, to the office of Mayor of the Borough of Baldwin.
The complaint recites that on January 1, 1972, a vacancy existed in the office of Mayor of the Borough of Baldwin. At a properly called meeting on January 3, 1972, the borough council undertook to fill that vacancy. Four were nominated for the office of mayor: Romanus, Bracken, and Bennett—all council members; and Burke—a non-council member.
Appellant, also a member of council, objected to the nomination for the office of mayor of any council member. He also objected to any nominated members participating in the voting. However, neither objection prevailed and council proceeded to vote on the nominees. Appellant voted for Burke, the non-council member. Bennett abstained from voting. Three council members voted for Romanus. Romanus voted for Bracken and Bracken voted for Romanus, giving Romanus a total of four votes out of seven. Immediately after resigning from council Romanus was sworn in as the new mayor on January 3, 1972, to fill the unexpired term.
In his complaint appellant alleged that by "prearrangement" Romanus and Bracken had voted for each other. Appellant contends that such a trade of votes is illegal, and thus invalidates council's election of Romanus as mayor. Appellee, Romanus, filed preliminary objections in which, inter alia, he demurred to the complaint on the grounds that it failed to state a cause of action. The court below sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. This appeal followed. The main issue thus presented is whether, accepting as true all of appellant's factual allegations, he has stated a cause of action which would invalidate the election of John T. Romanus as mayor and thus entitle him to the relief requested.
We start with the premise that absent a statutory prohibition a borough council may select one of its members to fill a mayoral vacancy. Our Legislature has not spoken on this issue and thus absent any voting illegality or other impropriety there is no impediment to the authority of council to select a fellow council member to fill a vacancy in the office of mayor. The only statutory restriction placed upon council in filling such vacancies is that the new mayor must be "a registered elector of the borough." It would indeed seem counterproductive and contrary to the public interest to establish for the first time a rule that one who has been elected by his fellow citizens, served on the council, and presumably has knowledge and experience in local governmental affairs is per se ineligible to fill a vacancy in the mayor's office. We are not disposed to fashion such a categorical rule.
However, it is also well established in this Commonwealth, as well as in practically all jurisdictions, that a councilman may not vote for himself nor may he vote on any matter in which he has a personal or pecuniary interest. Meixell v. Hellertown Borough Council, 370 Pa. 420, 88 A. 2d 594 (1952) ; Genkinger v. New Castle, 368 Pa. 547, 84 A. 2d 303 (1951) ; Commonwealth ex rel. McCreary v. Major, 343 Pa. 355, 22 A. 2d 686 (1941) ; Commonwealth v. Raudenbush, 249 Pa. 86, 94 Atl. 555 (1915). Appellant contends, and we agree, this rule means that any council member-nominee for mayor could not vote for himself because of his personal interest in the result of the election. He further asserts that by arranging to trade votes, appellee and fellow council member, Bracken, in essence managed to vote for themselves. Therefore, reasons appellant, both Bracken's and Romanus' votes should not be counted, leaving Romanus with only three votes, not a majority of the entire council.
Because of the posture of this appeal we must accept all of appellant's allegations of fact as true. Therefore, we must accept that there was indeed some "prearrangement" between councilmen Bracken and Romanus to exchange their votes. However, this Court need not accept appellant's conclusion of law—that such an exchange of votes was indeed unlawful. See GoodrichAmram, Standard Pennsylvania Practice, §1017(b)-11 at 93; §1111 (1957).
Even if we assume, arguendo, that such an arrangement to trade votes was unlawful, and those two votes were thus void, we must nevertheless reach the conclusion that the election of appellee as mayor was valid. In Meixell v. Hellertown Borough Council, supra, this Court was faced with this identical issue. There a nine-member borough council met to elect a new burgess (mayor). Two of the nine council members voted for themselves and their votes were declared "void and therefore a nullity." Meixell, supra at 422, 88 A. 2d at 595. This Court there said:
"[sjince the vote of two councilmen was illegal and void, neither their vote nor their presence should be counted in computing a quorum or a majority.
"That left 7 valid votes—more than a quorum. Of those 7 qualified and valid votes, 4 voted for Meixell for Burgess, 2 for Councilman Judd, and 1 for Councilman Abel. A quorum being present and legally voting, and Meixell having received a majority of all the legal votes cast, he was duly elected Burgess." Id. at 424, 88 A. 2d at 595-96.
Applying the same compelling reasoning to the instant case we must conclude that if Romanus' and Bracken's votes were void and their presence thus not counted, toward a quorum, nevertheless the remaining membership still constitutes a majority and a quorum of five valid votes still remains. Section 46001 of The Borough Code specifically provides, "[a] majority of the membership of council then in office shall constitute a quorum." Act of February 1, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1656, §1001, 53 P.S. §46001. When a quorum is present a majority of that quorum can validly elect a mayor. Commonwealth ex rel. Fortney v. Wozney, 326 Pa. 494, 192 Atl. 648 (1937); Commonwealth v. Fleming, 23 Pa. Superior Ct. 404 (1903). A quorum being present and Romanus having received the votes of a majority of the quorum, he was thus lawfully elected mayor.
We agree that the Common Pleas Court of Allegheny County reached the correct result in sustaining the appellee's preliminary objections and in dismissing the complaint.
Order affirmed.
Mr. Justice Manderino concurs in the result.
Mr. Chief Justice Jones took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Appellant would concede tliat if a councilman first resigns from council lie is eligible to run for the office of mayor in this election.
Act of February 1, 1966, P. L. (1965) 1656, §901, 53 P.S. §45901.