This statement shall serve as an update by Forty Fort Borough of the lawsuit which was filed by Robert Craig, Anthony Smith and Robert Swaback against the Borough and the Forty Fort Borough Civil Service Commission on July 22, 2024. The purposes of this statement are to provide Borough residents with an accurate update of the litigation to date and to apprise Borough residents of the state of the litigation presently, as the case has not yet concluded.
On July 1, 2024, Borough Council, upon motion made at the advertised Council Meeting that date, voted unanimously (with one abstention) to remove Robert Swaback from his position as a voting member of the Civil Service Commission, to remove Robert Craig from his position as an alternate member of the Commission, and to remove Anthony Smith from his position as secretary to the Commission.
Borough Council removed them from their positions with the Civil Service Commission for cause because of their actions; specifically, they ignored the appointment of Christine Kutz to the Civil Service Commission and continued to permit Mr. Craig to act as a voting member of the Commission when he was only appointed as an alternate member. At the time of their removal for cause, and for months preceding, the Borough needed two police officers and Council continually asked the Commission for a list of viable candidates for consideration and no list was presented. The conduct of Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith was viewed as obstructive, unauthorized and harmful to the Borough’s ability to carry out the process of hiring police officers.
It is worth noting that these positions are volunteer positions. They did not then nor now provide any compensation to any members, not the least of whom are Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith.
On July 22, 2024, Mr. Swababck, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith sued Forty Fort Borough and Forty Fort Borough’s Civil Service Commission seeking a variety of relief including, but not limited to, reinstatement to their previously held volunteer positions with the Civil Service Commission. They also asked the Court to invalidate any action taken by the Commission after their removal from their positions, to appoint a solicitor to the Commission replacing Atty. Anderson, as well as to award them reimbursement by the Borough of their claimed attorney’s fees and litigation and court costs.
As early as August, 2024, Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith and Mr. Swaback were making unreasonable demands for settlement. Specifically, on August 19, 2024, less than a month after they filed their lawsuit, they demanded the following:
1. That Council reinstate Anthony (“Tony”) Smith as a Secretary/Clerk to the Commission;
2. That Council reinstate Robert Swaback as a primary Member AND reinstate Robert Craig as an alternate Member but that Robert Craig be permitted to serve as a primary voting member on all existing business, as they defined it, at the time of his removal from the Commission;
3. That Council permit the Civil Service Commission to continue a baseless “investigation” into the Police Chief;
4. That Council permit the Civil Service Commission to continue a “investigation” a former member of the Commission;
5. That Council permit the appointment of a solicitor solely chosen by Mr. Craig and Mr. Swaback despite the Commission having appointed Attorney Lars Anderson into that position previousy; AND
6. That Council pay their alleged attorney’s fees which to that point they claimed were approximately $10,000.00, only four (4) weeks after they filed their lawsuit!
The Borough rejected that demand, as it wasn’t so much a offer to settle as it was a demand for even more than they were entitled to. Instead the Borough offered a settlement as follows:
- The Borough would appoint Rob Swaback and Rob Craig to the Civil Service Commission as alternate members; and
- Forty Fort Borough would pay one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars toward your clients’ attorney’s fees.
That offer was rejected by Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith and Mr. Swaback.
There were multiple hearings conducted in the case. Two days of testimony on 9/5 and 9/11/24 regarding their request for injunctive relief. There were hearings on their motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment. There were also several days of depositions. It is important to note that all of these proceedings were initiated by Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith. This lawsuit was not filed by either Forty Fort Borough or The Forty Fort Civil Service Commission. Likewise, none of the proceedings which I just mentioned were initiated by either Forty Fort Borough or The Forty Fort Civil Service Commission.
After each proceeding of the lawsuit, Forty Fort Borough and The Forty Fort Civil Service Commission prevailed. The Court ruled in favor of both Forty Fort Borough and The Forty Fort Civil Service Commission. In other words, the Court denied the relief Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith were requesting.
After all of those proceedings were concluded, the only thing left to do was to proceed to trial. Trial was scheduled for March 31, 2026. Given that there had already been several days of testimony from a variety of witnesses, most of whom were expected to testify at trial, counsel for Forty Fort and the Civil Service Commission suggested to Mr. Craig’s, Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Swaback’s counsel that, instead of conducting several days of testimony in a trial, we proceed on the record already developed during the preceding hearings and depositions, in part, in order to save time and expense for all involved. They agreed with us and that is how the trial was conducted by Judge Gartley, via a review of the record which had been developed in the case up to that point.
On August 20, 2026, Judge Gartley issued her Decision which consists of her Order and her Opinion outlining the basis for her decision.
It is important to note that the Court’s decision is NOT a full victory for Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith. In fact, most of what they requested of the Court in their initial Complaint and throughout their lawsuit, which they, on their own volition, chose to file, was denied by the Court.
The only thing which the Court granted in their favor was to order Mr. Swaback reinstated to his position as a voting member of the Civil Service Commission, not even as chairperson, for the remainder of his term, and to order Mr. Craig reinstated to his position as an alternate member of the Civil Service Commission, not as a voting member.
The Court denied more of what the Plaintiffs requested than the Court granted.
The Court denied Mr. Smith’s request to be reappointed as the Civil Service Commission’s secretary.
The Court denied their request to invalidate all Civil Service Commission actions taken after their removal from their positions on July 1, 2024.
The Court denied their request to appoint a so-called independent solicitor to the Commission.
And, the Court denied their request to be reimbursed by the Borough for their claimed attorney’s fees and litigation and court costs.
While the Borough and Civil Service Commission were disappointed that the Plaintiffs prevailed even in the slight manner in which they did, we were satisfied with the Court’s decision as it only granted them a small portion of what they requested. We believed it to be as close to a full win for the Borough and Commission short of all of their requested relief being denied.
For that reason, it was decided that the Borough and Commission would refrain from filing any post-trial motions with Judge Gartley or appealing to the appellate court.
We also felt vindicated by the Court in that Judge Gartley, in her opinion, specifically noted that she did not find any evidence that either the Borough or the Commission acted or defended the lawsuit for the sole purpose of annoyance, dishonesty, corruption, or delay, and, instead, noted that the Borough and Commission pursued a genuinely disputed legal position supported by our interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution and previously decided cases in Pennsylvania which related to issues similar in this case. The Court also noted that the Borough and Commission in their actions relied upon genuine operational disputes within the Commission.
At all times, the Borough Council acted in good faith and was well-intended in taking the actions that led to the litigation.
Given Judge Gartley’s decision to reinstate Mr. Swaback to his position on the Commission and to reinstate Mr. Craig to his position as an alternate member of the Commission, especially, since it appeared throughout the lawsuit that was their sole focus, we were surprised to learn that Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith intended to file a post-trial motion arguing to Judge Gartley that she incorrectly denied them the other relief they requested in their lawsuit. Specifically, they argue that she should have invalidated all actions taken by the Commission after their removal from their positions, that she should have appointed a solicitor to the Commission replacing Atty. Anderson, and that she should have awarded them their claimed attorney’s fees and litigation and court costs, and that the Borough should have been required to pay them. They filed that on August 31, 2026.
After Judge Gartley’s decision, we were also surprised to learn of Mr. Swaback’s, Mr. Craig’s and Mr. Smith’s settlement demand to end their litigation. Specifically, after initiating their lawsuit and receiving from the Court Mr. Swaback’s and Mr. Craig’s reinstatement to their prior positions, we learned that they do not want them. Rather, Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith want the following:
1. They want the Borough to acknowledge in writing that its July 1, 2024 removals of Robert Swaback and Robert Craig were unlawful, which is NOT what the Court said;
2. They want the Borough to publish an apology to Robert Swaback and Robert Craig in the Times Leader, in a form to be agreed upon by THEM;
3. They want the Borough to pay them for alleged attorneys’ fees and costs they supposedly incurred in filing their lawsuit, in the amount of $60,000.00; and
4. In exchange, Robert Swaback and Robert Craig will voluntarily step down from their seats on the Commission, and all three Plaintiffs will release the claims asserted in their lawsuit, and those that they believe they may still have purportedly as a result of the Council’s actions, and they will forego further post-trial and appellate proceedings upon full performance of the above.
All along, we believed the premise and goal of the Plaintiffs was to regain the positions from which Council removed them on July 1, 2024, and, after all is said and done, they don’t want them and they want to be paid for deciding to sue the Borough and the Commission. Based upon their settlement demand, they also don’t want to invalidate the Civil Service Commission’s actions post-July 1, 2024 nor do they wish to have Atty. Anderson removed as the Commission’s solicitor. Rather, they want money; specifically, $60,000.00.
The amount of money they are requesting is significant. Remember, $60,000.00. The reason it is significant is because there has been a lot of online chatter by a certain group, Forty Fort Proud, which hides behind a name and won’t ever identify who they are when they make unsubstantiated posts about Council and the Borough Solicitor, but, we do know who they are.
Another reason it is significant is that Mr. Swaback’s, Mr. Craig’s and Mr. Smith’s own counsel’s press release claims that they estimate the Borough Solicitor’s attorney’s fees in defending the Borough in the lawsuit or his in combination with the Commission’s Solicitor in his defense of the Commission total approximately $100,000.00. That statement is categorically false. The fees paid to the Borough Solicitor, Greg Skibitisky, AND the Commission’s Solicitor, Lars Anderson’s do not come close to that amount, even combined. Even accounting for the Solicitors’ fees, along with what it cost for the Borough to receive copies of deposition and hearing transcripts, the amount paid by the Borough does not come close to $100k. Anyone who says it is true is lying. Moreover, the combined Solicitors’ fees and the Borough’s cost for transcripts do not even total $60,000.00 which is what Mr. Craig, Mr. Smith and Mr. Swaback are demanding. In fact, in the five years that Attorney Skibitsky has been solicitor, all of his office’s fees paid by the Borough whether they have been for this case or anything else he has handled for the Borough do not total $100,000.00. Attorney Skibitsky’s fees in defending the Borough total $18,125.00, $10,000.00 of which was paid by the Borough’s insurance carrier. Which is another false statement being made online; specifically, that the Borough’s insurance carrier denied coverage for Mr. Craig’s, Mr. Smith’s and Mr. Swaback’s lawsuit. Not true. The policy provides for $10k in attorney’s fees and they paid it. So, in total, relative to Attorney Skibitsky’s fees, the Borough has paid $8,125.00 to his office; that’s it. Even assuming the full amount of his fees, $18,125.00, we must remember that the Borough did not file this lawsuit, Mr. Swaback, Mr. Craig and Mr. Smith did. The Borough defended itself. And now, they want $60,000.00.
