
Members of Harrisburg City Council, (from left) Rob Lawson, Ralph Rodriguez and Lamont Jones, exited the Dauphin County courthouse on Wednesday.
A Dauphin County judge is expected to make a decision in the coming weeks on whether or not City Council was within its rights by defunding salaries for top city officials.
During a lengthy evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, attorneys for council and Harrisburg Mayor Wanda Williams debated which powers each body has, following a tense budgetary process this winter.
Williams sued council earlier this month for its action to defund several top city positions as part of the 2026 budget. After council initially passed the budget, the mayor line-item vetoed amendments that council made to cut funding for the interim business administrator, project director for business administration/LERTA and the police bureau’s director of community engagement and relations. Council also zeroed out the city’s portion of funding for the interim director of building and housing and economic development. Following Williams’ veto, council overrode the vetoes.
In front of Dauphin County Judge Jeffrey Engle, Williams testified, as did Samuel Sulkosky, the previous interim business administrator who was terminated along with staff in the two other completely defunded positions. Board chair of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority (ICA) Doug Hill also testified.
Much of Williams’ testimony regarded the understanding of her powers as mayor under the Optional Third Class City Charter, which Harrisburg adheres to. Williams said that she had the power to hire and fire personnel, while council serves as the legislative body.
This was the crux of Williams’ lawsuit against council, in which she said that council’s action “invades” her powers.
“This wasn’t a fiscal action,” Williams said during the hearing. “This was personal.”
Williams emphasized the importance of the roles in the city and that the business administrator role, specifically, is statutory and required under the city charter.
City council has explained previously that part of its decision to defund the two interim director roles was due to the fact that the appointees had not been approved by council.
Gloria Martin-Roberts was appointed as the interim director of building and housing and economic development in June 2024, and Sulkosky was made interim business administrator after council declined to affirm him in the role, which he had served in since October 2024.
According to the city’s code, the mayor can appoint an “acting” director, who can serve for 120 days before requiring council approval. However, both sides said that “acting” is not the same as “interim.”
Williams said that she was not aware of any provisions for appointing an “interim” director in the code, but said that she made the interim appointments “on the advice of my attorney, the city solicitor.”
Sulkosky, during his testimony, also noted that several previous mayors have utilized interim directors.
“This concept of ‘interim’ is imaginary,” city council’s attorney Casey Coyle told TheBurg. “It doesn’t exist in the law.”
Coyle explained that, because Williams is seeking equitable relief in a civil suit, based on the “unclean hands doctrine,” she should not receive that relief if she has engaged in misconduct.
Coyle said that the judge’s eventual ruling should clear up the practice of appointing “interim” directors and whether or not it is admissible.
“The hope is that we get clarity and that council is respected as a co-equal level of government,” he told TheBurg.
Referring to the other two defunded positions–the director of community relations for the police bureau and the project director for business administration/LERTA–Coyle said that, because they are not statutory positions, council could not be in violation of the code.
Council has previously stated that they defunded the project director for business administration/LERTA because they were dissatisfied with former director Jason Graves’ work and that the director of community relations for the police bureau position was redundant.
However, during her testimony, Williams maintained that by defunding the positions, council essentially fired the employees and rendered the positions unable to be filled.
“Why would anybody work for free?” she said.
Williams and Sulkosky also detailed their concern that essential city functions will be negatively impacted or interrupted without people in these roles. For example, Williams said that union negotiations with the Fraternal Order of Police and AFSCME have stalled, because Sulkosky has previously worked on them, and grants are in limbo.
At the beginning of Wednesday’s hearing, Coyle attempted to get the suit thrown out, saying that none of those potential harms, due to council’s action, actually harm Williams herself and are speculative.
Coyle also said that the case may create a “dangerous precedent” that would threaten the separation of powers between the council and the mayor.
Engle overruled the objections, allowing witnesses to take the stand.
The third witness was Hill, who testified in relation to the ICA’s, a state-appointed financial oversight board for Harrisburg, evaluation of the 2026 budget.
Following the budget passage, the ICA released a statement generally approving of the new budget, but raising concerns over the defunded positions. During his testimony, Hill reiterated his concerns that the defunding of those positions could hurt the city, which is still coming out of financial distress, and limit the city’s ability to bolster economic development. Without a project director for business administration, and with the interim director of building and housing and economic development unable to do work outside of her federal responsibilities, he expressed concern that an economic development plan for the city would not get done.
“We believe it’s important to have those positions funded,” Hill said.
Council members Danielle Hill, Lamont Jones, Crystal Davis, Ralph Rodriguez and Robert Lawson were in attendance at Wednesday’s hearing.
Council’s side did not call any witnesses.
Engle adjourned around 3 p.m., saying that he wanted time to review the evidence, but that he wanted to address the matter as quickly as possible.
Engle gave both attorneys seven days to submit their briefs from today’s hearing, sometime after which, he would be expected to make his decision.
If you like what we do, please support our work. Become a Friend of TheBurg!