Former Luzerne County Children and Youth director Joanne Van Saun, seated in the front row wearing a protective mask, attended a hearing at the county courthouse Friday evening regarding her request for a county pension.
Jennifer Learn-Andes | Times Leader
Following a court-ordered Friday night hearing, a Luzerne County Retirement Board majority begrudgingly agreed to approve a county pension for former county Children and Youth director Joanne Van Saun.
The retirement board had unanimously voted in February 2022 to deny Van Saun’s county pension, which had been calculated at $4,467 per month largely due to her 36 years of county employment.
Van Saun, of Dallas, had been sentenced in December 2021 to 34 months of probation for misdemeanor child endangerment and obstruction offenses, with the first nine months on house arrest, related to her failure to investigate at least 217 reports alleging child abuse and neglect in 2017.
Months after rejecting the pension, the board unanimously voted last July to refund Van Saun $88,319.53 in payments she had made toward her pension — without interest.
In response, Van Saun filed a civil complaint last August against the county pension system and retirement board over the pension denial.
Under the state’s Public Employee Pension Forfeiture Act, former employees are not eligible for a pension or interest on their contributions toward a pension if they are convicted of certain crimes related to their employment.
Van Saun’s civil complaint argued the offenses to which she pleaded guilty did not fall under the definitions of those allowing pension forfeiture under the state act.
Through outside legal counsel, the retirement board maintained Van Saun is legally required to exhaust all administrative remedies rather than bringing the action before the court, the filing said.
County Court of Common Pleas Judge Richard M. Hughes III issued an order ruling the court does not have jurisdiction over the matter at this time. He dismissed the complaint without prejudice and remanded the matter to the retirement board.
The judge directed the board to hold a hearing providing “an opportunity for plaintiff to be heard,” the order said.
Board action
After a legal presentation from Van Saun’s attorneys and hearing public testimony from several citizens opposing the pension Friday, three of the five retirement board members — county Acting Manager Brian Swetz, interim Budget/Finance Division Head Mark Majikes and employee/retiree representative John Evanchick Jr. — approved the pension.
The three said they have been advised by the county’s insurance-covered outside legal counsel that the pension should be approved.
Swetz said Van Saun’s actions were “very egregious” and that his decision is based solely on the recommendation of legal counsel and the law.
The pension vote by no means minimized what happened or passes the buck, he added.
“It’s not a proud moment and may not be the right thing to do, but it’s the law,” Swetz said.
Swetz added a “regretfully” before his vote, while Majikes chose the word “unfortunately.”
Evanchick said such situations need to be addressed legislatively with a change to the state’s county pension law that expands the crimes requiring pension forfeiture.
He reiterated he has publicly raised this issue in two past pension votes and again suggested council’s legislative committee take up the issue and lobby state legislators for action.
“Until then, these are the rules we must follow,” Evanchick said.
Before voting, Evanchick also verified with Van Saun’s attorneys that they are not aware of any other criminal charges or ongoing investigations involving Van Saun.
The remaining two board members — county Council Chairwoman Kendra Vough and county Councilman Brian Thornton — voted against the pension, although they did not disagree with the legal reasoning driving the votes of the other three.
Thornton and Vough unsuccessfully attempted to table a decision until later this month, with Thornton saying he wanted more time to review the legal documents presented at the hearing.
Vough got emotional before the board vote.
While the board has been told by legal counsel the pension must be approved under the law, Radle said she cannot authorize a pension after listening to descriptions of Van Saun’s actions and the impact on children, the most vulnerable population in the county.
The board is continuously “put between a rock and hard place” making such decisions when “we know they don’t deserve these pensions,” said Vough, who chairs the retirement board that oversees the employee pension fund.
“She was allowed to plead down to a misdemeanor, and now they want her to have her pension,” she said, referring to Van Saun. “It’s infuriating.”
Vough also questioned the logic of this type of call being made by a county board that consists of two elected officials, a retired county employee and two county administrators.
“Please tell me in what world that seems like an OK idea,” she said.
Thornton, who serves as board vice chairman, said he echoes her sentiments.
“Unfortunately the state, who brought the charges, in my opinion just wanted to dispense with the case. They allowed Van Saun to plead down to very low charges,” Thornton said.
He said the board can’t include other “serious egregious actions either caused by Van Saun or her staff with her knowledge” that were in a report the county had commissioned by Philadelphia law firm Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP.
“Unfortunately our attorneys and solicitors say we can only deny this pension if it meets with the Pennsylvania Forfeiture Act and the charges that are enumerated under the act,” Thornton said. “The very low charges that the state accepted do not, I’m told, meet with any of those criteria under the forfeiture act.”
Thornton agreed board members are “boxed into a corner.”
“I don’t like it any more than most of the members of the audience,”
Under an agreement with Van Saun, she will end her legal action and not pursue county payment of her legal costs as long as she receives her pension retroactive to July 1, 2021 and going forward. She would have received $102,746 in pension payments since that date, so the county will owe her $14,427 in back payments plus interest after the check the county sent her for her own contribution into the fund is deducted.
Van Saun did not speak during the hearing and was surrounded by four attorneys from Scranton-based Myers, Brier and Kelly. Attorneys John B. Dempsey and Patrick A. Casey presented the legal background of the case.
Dempsey said after the vote that the board applied state law in its decision and “did so properly.”
“The board made the right decision,” Dempsey said.
Several residents spoke during public comment, which followed the usual three-minute time limit, although they were sworn in because their statements were technically considered testimony.
Hanover Township resident Elizabeth Hartman said more than 100 families are uniting with plans to file a civil suit over Children and Youth matters, maintaining Van Saun will be among those named in future litigation.
Vehemently opposing a pension for Van Saun, Hanover Township resident Mary Ann Potsko read examples of the types of child abuse and neglect reports Van Saun allegedly failed to investigate, saying she was directly citing the state Attorney General’s Office announcement of the charges against Van Saun in July 2021.
Four others spoke of personal negative experiences with the agency and said a pension should not be granted.
Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.
