A proposal to fire Schuylkill County Tax Claim Director Angela Toomey and Assistant Director Denise McGinley-Gerchak for allegedly using sophisticated county search software to look up personal information on about 300 people collapsed Wednesday when all three commissioners voted a three-way split.

Commissioners’ Chairman Barron L. Hetherington voted yes; Commissioner Gary J. Hess voted no; and Commissioner George F. Halcovage Jr. abstained due to a conflict of interest.

In a related move, commissioners voted 2-1, with Hess dissenting, to authorize spending up to $277,894 to Experian to notify 9,146 people whose information may have been compromised in the searches, provide them with one to two years’ of credit monitoring, and set up a call center.

The investigation into the alleged unauthorized searches has now gone beyond the courthouse to a criminal investigation.

“The report was passed to (county) District Attorney (Michael) O’Pake, who informed us that he referred it to the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General. I can confirm that there is an active investigation by the Office of the Attorney General,” County Administrator Gary R. Bender said Wednesday.

It was not yet known Wednesday whether using the software, LexisNexis, to view personal information in unauthorized searches is a criminal act.

The expensive software accesses such sensitive information as Social Security numbers, driver’s license records, and legal and financial data. It also shows information on the search subjects’ family members and neighbors, which is why the 300 searches may have compromised 9,146 people.

Commissioners on Nov. 4 hired Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC, Harrisburg, to investigate “various data protection statutes and the improper use of third-party information search software” allegedly conducted by county employees.

At that meeting, commissioners had also planned to fire Toomey and McGinley-Gerchak, but Hess asked to table the terminations until the investigation was completed.

Hess and Hetherington agreed.

Halcovage abstained on the advice of his lawyer.

Immediate aftermath

Hetherington asked Halcovage to break the tie on the firings; Halcovage, citing a pecuniary conflict of interest, declined.

In a sharply worded statement, Hetherington castigated Hess and Halcovage, and called on Halcovage to give up his office.

“He is not able to put aside his personal issues and act properly on the behalf of the citizens of Schuylkill County. He needs to resign immediately,” he said.

Halcovage explained his reasons for abstaining from voting on the terminations and declining to break the tie.

“A vote from me is likely to become a basis of significant economic claim with me, and this pecuniary impact constitutes a conflict of interest. Therefore, on advice of counsel, I must abstain from this vote,” he said.

After the meeting, Halcovage said that “going back as far as 2013 and even more currently, these employees accessed sensitive personal information of my wife and me, as well as our families, neighbors and associates. This information includes dates of birth, Social Security numbers and driver’s license numbers along with other information. On me, this occurred on three separate occasions.”

Opposing vote

Hess said he voted against both actions because he felt the investigation had not been thorough enough and that Toomey and McGinley-Gerchak had not been interviewed or given an opportunity to defend themselves.

On the proposal to fire the women, Hess said, “With the pending litigation that has been filed, related to harassment in the workplace, terminating these two employees at this time could be considered retaliatory and further expose the county to liability.”

Hess was referring to a federal lawsuit filed in March 2021 by four unnamed women, all county employees, accusing Halcovage of years of sexual harassment. The women are referred to in the lawsuit as Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3, and Jane Doe 4.

“As to Mr. Hess,” Hetherington said, “we delayed proper action twice at his request and we engaged an independent law firm to conduct a review of the matter. Again the Eckert Seamans firm confirmed the investigation was done properly and supported the proposed action of termination. This is an absolute disgrace.”

Attorney responds

Attorney Catherine W. Smith, of the Derek Smith Law Group, represents Toomey and Gerchak.

She contends the searches were conducted as routine tax claim business and that the investigation was retaliatory.

“We believe the county’s decision to discipline these two women is not related to any specific issue(s) that arose because of their use of third-party database tool. Furthermore, we question the county’s ‘investigation,’ given than it did not so much as include interviewing the two women accused to learn about their job duties, responsibilities, and reasons and justifications for the searches conducted. As such, we believe that it is purely retaliatory and in an effort to eliminate their presence from the county due to their continued opposition to the county’s unlawful behavior,” she said in a prepared statement.

“Despite the unprecedented unpaid six month suspension that the county has subjected my clients to, they will continue to oppose the unlawful behavior of the county administration in an effort to rid Schuylkill County government of toxic workplace culture. The women of Schuylkill County deserve respect and deserve an environment in which they feel empowered rather than silenced. The county has neglected to follow county policies and procedures and have neglected to uniformly apply them,” Smith said.

Public comment

Several people spoke on the matters, including the county Treasurer Linda M. (Marchalk) Yeich and Clerk of Courts Maria T. Casey.

Marchalk supported the firings and notifications.

Casey defended the women, saying their searches using the software were conducted solely for tax claim business, and referring to them as Halcovage’s “victims.”

“The investigation wasn’t independent,” she said. “Why did you not interview the Jane Does?”

She also asked, “why was this directed by the very people who are defendants in Halcovage’s lawsuit?”

Casey brought pages of printouts to illustrate that the searches were legitimate. LexisNexis, she pointed out, is also used in the commissioners’ office.

“The only thing that shows up is a name, a phone number if they have it, and a last known address. A Social Security number is the sheet, but you know who generates that? LexisNexis,” she said. “Not these Jane Does. It’s an automatic part of the program that’s generated.”

“All they were doing was trying to find the last good address,” Casey said.

The women also used LexisNexis to search for information on 9,000 to 10,000 annual courtesy letters, mailings that were returned as undeliverable, certified entries of claim, posting of properties, and other functions.

Casey said there is no evidence the personal information of 9,146 people was compromised, and warned that sending the notifications would open a floodgate of lawsuits.

Yeich said that in a previous job, she said she used the software, and it does provide “nonpublic, personal information such as dates of birth and Social Security numbers.”

She believes searches were done for personal rather than Tax Claim Office business, and the information of the 9,146 people is “out there.”

“We have a duty to protect not only our employees here in the county, we have a duty to protect our taxpayers.” She urged commissioners to act quickly on the notifications.

“Waiting five or six months is not acceptable,” she said.

Yeich, too, warned the county of a deluge of lawsuits.

Businessman and former Port Carbon Mayor Jeff Dunkel called the firings “despicable and retaliatory.”

He said Halcovage “should not be permitted to vote on that, being the main person in the (federal) lawsuit.”

Dunkel also said the women weren’t interviewed during the investigation, and claimed that Assistant County Solicitor Glenn T. Roth Jr. and Halcovage both looked up names on LexisNexis for personal reasons, and that Halcovage asked employees to research people on the software.

Further, he said Halcovage was found by county administrators of violating sexual harassment, conduct disciplinary action, and physical/verbal abuse policies.

Dunkel also said there were no policies broken.

Former sheriff’s candidate Douglas Litwhiler asked if the county has a policy on the use of LexisNexis. He also said the women were denied due process in the investigation.

A woman from North Manheim Township spoke, saying Toomey and Gerchak are “outstanding human beings, professionals who worked” for the county’s benefit for “14 and 11 years, respectively.”

The investigation has “tarnished their reputations and credibility.”