Opinion ID: 2818666
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Amici

Text: Amici note that Concord Township voters approved a referendum pursuant to the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law, 53 P.S. § 2911 et seq., whereby Commissioners-Elect were chosen to study the possibility of home rule government and recommend accordingly.11 Amici argue that by establishing the Commission, Township voters have exercised their right to adopt their own form of local government. Amici 11 If the majority of commission members were to recommend a home rule charter or optional plan, a referendum would be placed on the ballot, giving Township voters the final decision. Otherwise, the group would be discharged and no change would take place. [J-110-2014] - 9 claim that if Appellant’s referendum question were added to the ballot, which would purportedly be before the Commission even began its study, the reason for and purpose of that study would be rendered moot. Amici otherwise incorporate Appellees’ and Intervenor’s allegations that Appellant failed to comply with the statutory requirements. Appellant counters that at the time Amici filed their brief, the results of the November election had not yet been certified, meaning the Commission had not validly formed and the Commissioners-Elect could not take legal action in its name. 53 P.S. § 2915(a). Appellant adds that even if the Commission were validly formed, it cannot seek relief because its purpose is limited to examining the possibility of home rule government. 53 P.S. § 2918. Appellant further alleges that the ballot question authorizing the Commission itself may have been unlawful, since “[a]n ordinance may not be passed . . . for the election of a government study commission . . . while proceedings are pending under any other petition . . . .” 53 P.S. § 2927(a).