PETER MOSES,

Plaintiff,

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY

LUZERNE COUNTY COMMUNITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLLEGE,

NO. 4644 OF 2009 Defendant.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

NANCIE REDMOND, hereby certifies that on August 3,2009, she served a true

and correct copy of the COMPLAINT on defendant by hand delivering a copy thereof to

counsel for defendant, Joseph E. Kluger, Esquire, Hourigan, Kluger & Quinn, 600 Third

Avenue, Kingston, PA 18704.

PETER MOSES,

Plaintiff,

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LUZERNE COUNTY

V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY

LUZERNE COUNTY COMMUNITY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COLLEGE,

NO. 4644 OF 2009 Defendant

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Peter Moses ("Mr. Moses"), by and through his counsel, Sheiley E.

Centini, Esq. and Barry H. Dylier, Esq. of the Dyller Law Firm, hereby alleges for his

Complaint as follows:

Mr. Moses was Associate Dean of Administration and Auxiliary Services at:

Luserrse County Community College ("LCCC"). In that position, Mr. Moses attempted to

eliminate v~rsngdoing and government waste involving government contracts for various

services at LCCC. As reward for his selfless efforts and his courage, Mr. Moses

suffered retaliation at the hands of corrupt yet powerful officials at LCCC, inci~dirrg

former LCCC Beat-d of Trustees Chairperson Ross Scarantino ("Scarantins").

Scarantino, who was also Pittston Area Superintendent during the same time frame:

recently pled guilty to a federal felony charge of Theft or Bribery Concernirrg P~ograrns

Receiving Federal Funds for corruptly accepting kickbacks in exchange for contracts /

awarded within Pittston Area School District.

When Mr. Moses tried to reveal the wrongdoing anci government waste

regarding LCCC's contracts, invoices and purchase orders to Scarantino and others,

they and LCCC retaliated against Mr. Moses in the most severe way. They terminated

Mr. Moses's employment, criminally investigated and charged him with crimes to which

he vehemently asserts his innocence, and tarnished his reputation.

This action is brought under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law, 43 Pa.G.S, 5

1421, et seq., to vindicate the injustice LCCC perpetrated on Mr. Moses, the Ione voice

for the taxpayers against the corrupt and criminal controlling authorities at LCCC, who

were motivated only by greed and personal gain, and thought nothing cf destroying h1rS

Moses in order to preserve their corrupt fiefdom.

THE PARTIES

1. ,Plaintiff Peter Moses is an adult individual, residing in Luzerrre County,

Peansyivania. From approximately November, 1991 to September 23, 2008 Mr. Moses

war; an "employee" of defendant LCCC under 43 Pa.C.S. 5 1422.

2. The defendant LCCC is a political subdivision of the Commonvveafth of

Pennsylvania and Luzerne County and is an education institution in the form of

Community College established pursuant to 24 Pa.C.S. 51 9-1 901 -A, et seq,, sponsored

by Luzerne County and located at 1333 So~lth Prospect Street, NantScoke? kuzerne

County, Pennsylvania. LCCC is a "public body" and Mr. Moses' "employer" from

approximatefy November, 1991 to September 23, 2008 under 43 Pa.C.S. 5i 2 422.

2

BACKGROUND

3. Beginning in 2003, Mr. Moses held the job of Associate Bean of

Administration and Auxiliary Services. Pat-t of this job was l o revisw irsvcices and

contracts between service providers and LCCC.

4. Mr. Moses's direct supervisor was Richard Arnico ("Amico"), who was the

Dean of Administration and Human Resources.

5. Both Mr. Moses and Amico were supervised by the Coiiege President,

Thomas hcary ("'teary").

6. From 2003 until 2009, Ross Scarantino ("Scarantino") was the

Chairperson of the LCCC Board of Trustees.

7. Scarantino was also a member of the Pittstcn Area School Board.

8, ltrl 2009, Scarantino pled guilty to a federal felony charge of Theft or

Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds for corruptly accepting

kickbscks in exchange for contracts awarded within Pittston Area School Dislrict.

9. in 2008, the LCCC Board of Trustees also consisted sf \Pice Chairperson

Paul Halesey ("Halesey"), Secretary Gregory A. Skrepenak ("Skrepenak"), Charles S.

Adonizls ("Adonisio"), August J. Piazza ("PiazzaJ'), Michael Tigue ("Tigue"), Judith k

Ellis ("Ellis"), Mahmoud H. Fahrny ("Fahmy"), Paula Csnahan-DeJoseph ("Conahan-

DeJosephi'), Joseph M. Lombardo ("Lsmbardo"), Robert Panawicz ("Panowicz"),

Thomas P. Pizano ("Pizano"), Joseph Rymar ("Rymar"), Elaine C u r r ~ ("Curry-") zrrd

Thornss CJDor;nell ("cS'DonneilJ').

19. All financial transactions at LCCC, including payment of invoices

submitted for contracted work, are supervised by the Business and/or Finance

Department.

7 I . Joseph Gasper ("Gasper"), Associate Dean of Finance, was Mr. Moses's

superior. Gasper's job duties included payment of invoices submitted for csniracted

work.

'1 2. Robert Linskey ("Linskey"), Director of Accounts and Finance; was Mr.

Moses's superior. Linskey's job duties included payment of invoices sr~bmitted fur

contracted work. Linskey also served as a member of the Pittston Area School Board

wjth Scaral~tino.

13. Mary Lou Yerke ("Yerke"), Controller, was Mr. Moses's superior.

Yerke's job duties included payment of invoices submitted fcr contracted work.

I-IVAC

14. From approximately 2005 to 2006, LCCC required i~stallation of air

conditioning and heating units ("HVAC"). A company called Architecture & Engineering

Gritlup desired to put the contract out for bid. At the insistence of Scarantino,

Architecture 8 Engineering Group wrote specifications for the units alone, without tRs

inslallation, even though Architecture & Engineering Group explz;lned that C iimada n$>

sense is make such a bid without also including installation. However, the work was

never bid, as is required by applicable law and policy.

15. The contract for installation of the HVAC units was awarded without

being bid to Power Technologies, a company owned by Harry Petrillo ("Petriilo").

16. in 2006, Mr. Moses became aware through his review of invoices

that Power Technologies was overbilling LCCC for parts and labor. In addition, Mr.

Moses ~ot iced that some Power Technologies invoices were obviously aftcred in ~ r d e r

to increase the c@sts of parts.

17. Mr. Moses in good faith reported to Scarantino, Arnico, Yerke and Leary

th1s \waste and wrongdoing.

18. Mr. Moses was instructed to authorize payment of the bills in full.

19. Mr. Moses continued to complain about the altered invoices and

overbilling by Power Technologies. Eventually, Mr. Moses authorized only partial

payments to Pcwer Technologies and established new policies and procedures

regarding the payment of invoices by LCCC.

20. Scarantino instructed Amico to order Mr. Moses to pay the P o w ~ r

Technology b i b in full, despite knowing that the bills were inflated. Mr. Moses still

rel'us~d.

21. In 2006, Mr. Moses was called to meet Sczrantirac and Petrille, the

owner of Power Technologies, at a restaurant. Scarantino told Mr. Moses that he was

no: a ''team player," and Mr. Moses could not be on "the team" if he did riot pay

Petrillo's Fcwer Technologies bills "in full." Mr. Moses was also ordered te: stop

questioning :he accuracy of the bills.

32. On numerous occasions in the evening hours, Mr. Moses was summo;~ed

to the ch3nference roam at the Pittston Area School District where h e was ordered by

Scarantino and Amico to stop questioning and simply pay the Power Technofcigies bitEs.

Security Cameras

23. In 2006, LCCC required installation of security cameras. T\n;o companies,

ACIT and Hillman, wrote specifications for the work. Again, the work was never bid, as

is required by app!icable law and policy.

24. Instead, the contract was awarded without being bid to a company called

Intsllacorn, Inc. ("Pntellacorn").

25. Mr. Moses in good faith reported to Scarantinc about the wrongdoing anb

waste regarding the award to Intellacorn. Scarantino falsely informed Mr. Moses that

the security camera contract will be issued under "state contract" so it did not need to

bs bid.

26. The price that Intellacorn quoted for the job greatly exceeded the amount

anticipated in the ADT and Hillman specifications.

27. Arnico, Piazza, Scarantino and Conahan-DeJoseph all atternpte6 tc

convince Mr Moses that the Intellacorn contract did not need to bs bid and th24 Mr..

Moses shuu!C! simply pay the invoices, even though they greatly exceeded the price

range for the job.

28. At one point, Mr. Moses told Leary that LCCC was wasting money by

paying the inflated amount to Intellacorn. Leary told Mr. Moses that Leary would prefer

to rely on the expertise of Piazza, Scarantino and Conahan-DeJoseph. Leary chastised

Mr. Moses for questioning board members.

29. Scarantino told Mr. I\/loses he would lose his job if he did not approve the

3r3. Mr. Moses began to receive invoices demanding payment from Intellacorn

fcr a "sewice agreement" before the cameras were even installed,

31. No LCCC official, other than Mr. Moses, questioned why ln'ie~laccrn

should i-13ceive payments for se~~ic ing a system that did no: yet exist.

Construction Mana~er

32. In 2006, Mr. Moses became aware that a large amount of

money was missing from an account at LCCC.

33. When Mr. Moses investigated the reason for the missing funds, he was

told by Amico that the money was a down-payment from LCCC to SamCar Group, LI-D

for construction management. SamCar Group, LTD is a construction management firm

owned by Samuel J. Marranca ("Marranca").

34. SzmCar Group, LTD later partnered with Precept Assoc;is-ies LEC on the

LCCC project. Precept Associates LLC is a company which is located at I886

Highway 31 5, Plains Township, PA. Precept Associates LLC has the same address as

Prociak and Associates, the auditing firm used by LCCC and obvneb by Michael

Prcciak. Mr, Prolsiak was also the campaign manager for Luzerne County

Commissioner and LCGC Board Secretary Skrepenak. Further, the President of

Precegt Associates LLC, Robed Higdon ("Higdon"), did remodeling work on

Skrepcnak's home.

45. Funding for the construction jobs SarnCar Group, LTB and/or Precept

Asseciati.es L tC were purportedly paid to strpervise had not even been approvsef whet;

LCCC made the initial down payment.

36. LCCC president Leary unilaterally approved the SamCsr Group, LTD

and/or Precept Associates LLC contract without consulting with LCCC solicitor, Joseph

Klcrgei-, Esq.

37. The practice of LCCC had been that no contrzct wouid be finalized

without approval of the solicitor. On one occasion, Mr. Moses complained to P,rnico and

Gasper that this practice was abandoned.

38. Leary later stated that he signed the SamCar Group, LS-5

and,& Precept Associates LLC contract without even reading it.

39. Further, the LCCC Board did not approve the contracted 8% rate on aii

construction costs which SamCar Group, LTD and/or Precept Associates LLC was lo

receive, That rate was well above the standard industry rate.

40. Additionally, the SamCar Group, LTB and/or Precept Associates FLC

contracj went beyond the scope of a previous Board resolution wi~ich approved hiring

Precept Ass~ciates to manage construction sf only two projects

41. LCCC already had a construction manager who was on the LSCC

- payroll. ! herefore, an outside construction manager was a complete waste, let s;lone

the waste created by an outside construction manager charging well above slanosrd

industry rates.

42. Mr. Moses in good faith reported this waste and wrongdoing ti> Amico.

Amico was already aware that the down payment had gone to SarnCar Groua, LTB

and/or Qrecept Associztes LLC. Arnica fe?d Mr. Mosets that Learl;, Scera~tiilo, Gasper

an$ Linskey k n ~ w about it.

43. Scarantino subsequently approached Mr. Moses about questioning this

paymeat ro SarnCar Group, LTB and/or Precept Associates LLC. Scarantino again

threatened Mr. Moses with his job.

Carpetinq

44. In 2007, LCCC required new carpeting. Scarantino informed Mra Mosas

that King Glass was to receive the contract for the carpeting work.

45. Mr. Moses reminded Scarantino that three bids w~ulcl be required before

it could be decided who would receive the contract.

6 . Scarantino falsely informed Mr. Moses that LCCC is parl of a

"consortium," allowing it to purchase under "state contract" w1ithou.t receiving qtroiations.

47. Unbeknownst to Mr. Moses at the time, LCCC had indeed already

received price quofa.3:ions from companies other than King Glass.

48. When King Glass submitted its price quote, it was the lowest o: all bids

received. Therefore, King Glass was awarded the contract.

48, t-iowever, after the work was performed, Mr. Moses received a hi11 from

King Glass which exceeded not only the original quote from King Glass but also

exceeded the other bids submitted for the job.

50. Mr. Moses contacted King Glass and explained that LCGC would amly psiji

the quoted prics.

51. Subsequentiy, Scarantino contacted Mr. Moses anc? instructed hiin to pay

the inf!ated t<icg GIass bill in full.

Laxkcaping

52. In early 2007, Mr. Moses became aware of a scheme that

Scarantino, Anthony Rostock ("Rostock") and Leary were using to defraud Luzerne

C o ~ n l y taxpayers.

53. Rostock was also a Pittston Area School Board member serving with

Scarantino.

54. Landscaping items were being purchased by LCCC from Sklro's Lawn

and Garden Center in Hanover Township.

55. Ifistead of using Skiro's to install the iandscaping ikems, LCCC dsed

its own staff to install the items.

56. However, Scarantino needed to figure out a way to "cornpensaie"

Rostosk.

57. LCCC paid Rostock a "supervision fee" regarding the labor performed by

LCCC's own maintenance staff.

58. 'Alheri Mr. Moses reported this wrongdoing and waste to Arnica; h e was

told to mind his cwn business.

Hiring Practices

59. lniermittently throughout his empioyment with LCCC, Mr. Mosss was a

pa2 of different Search Committees at LCCC which were in charge of interviewing

candidates for certain positions within LCCG.

3 . The Search Cornmittess utilized a rating system f3r employment

candidates.

61. When Scarantino became Chairperson of the Board of Trustees in

2003, a pattern developed in which Amico and others instructed the Search

Committees as to who Scarantino wanted hired, regardless of whether cr not

Scarantino's ch~sen candidate interviewed or what Scaranti~o's candisfais's score was

on the rating system.

6 2 On one occasion, an individual named John Adonizio interviewed for the

position of night shift custodial supervisor

63. Mr. Adonizio also served on the Pittston Area School Board with

Scarantino.

54. During the interview, Mr. Adonizio disclosed that he does not knsw ho;a to

clean. Mr. Adonizio scored a "0" on the 1 through 10 rating system for prospective

employees.

65. After M r . Adonizio's interview, Conahan-DeJoseph, the Chairperson

of f-lurrzan Resources and member of the Board of Trustees approached Mr, Moses,

Conahan-5eJoseph told Mr. M ~ s e s to change Mr. Adonimis's scores because

Scarantino wanted to hire him.

66. M r . Moses refused to change Mr. Adonizio's scores. Then, Canahan-

DeJoseph ordered Mr. Moses to write a memo to Arnico stating that even though IVIr

Adonizis was not the top scorer, he had the proper disposition for the positisn.

7 . LCCC hired Mr. Adonifis.

68. Subsequent to Mr. Adonizio's employment, Mr. Adonizio \was czrrvieied of

DUl and lost his driver's license for 12 months as a result of this conviction.

69. LCCC then hired another individual, Mr. Michael Bliveri, as a night

custodian.

70. Scarantino told Mr. Moses Mr. Oiiveri's primary job duty was to

chauffezr Mr. Adonizio to and from work while his iicense was ur?der suspension.

71. On one occasion, Amico told the Search Committee that Michelle Piazza

must be chosen to head the Alcohol Abuse Program, even though she was not the

highest rated candidate.

72. Mr. Moses objected, reported this waste and wrongdoing to drnico. li14r.

Moses was not asked to serve on any further Search Committees.

Retaliation

73. In December of 2087, Mr. Moses became aware "ihat approximately a

$1 200.013 deposit was missing from the cafeteria. Mr. Moses report86 the i??issing

deposir to Amico.

74. Mr. Moses subsequently went on vacation and the missing deposit was

investigated.

75. When he returned from vacation, Leary told Mr. Moses fhst the missir~g

deposit investigation was leading to Mr. Moses.

76. Felon Scarantino, Cofiahan-DeJoseph, Arnico and Leary pressured IWr.

Muses to retire.

77. Wlr, Moses refused to retire.

75. Officials at LCCC referred their internal investigation regarding the missing

deposiT to the Nanticoke Police Department for the purpose of charging Mr. h?\r4oses with

crirnes in order to have a reason to terminate Mr. Moses's empicryment. Ths re31

12

reason LCCC and its corrupt officials desired to terminate Mr. Moses and to charge him

with crimes was because of Mr. Moses's whistleblowing activities.

79. On September 23, 2008, LCCC terminated Mr. Moses's employment.

83. Mi-. Moses's termination was in ret-aiiation for Mr. kioses's good faith

disclasures 05 government wrongdoing and waste on numerous occasions throughout

felon Scararrtino's tenure as Chairperson of the Board of Trustees.

COUNT ONE (43 Pa.C.S. S1421 el seq.; Injunction)

81. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in

paragraphs 1 through 80 herein.

83. Defendant threatened, discriminated against or retaliated against plaintiff

regarding his compsnsation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment becatase he

mads gocd faith reports to his employer cf insSances of wrcrrsgdcsing.

83. Mr. Moses's work record now shows that he was terminated by

LCCC. This wil! permanently impair his position with any future, potential employer.

84. Mr. Moses does not have an adequate remedy at law.

COUNT TWO (43 Pa.C.S. $1421 et seq.)

85. Plaintiff repeals and realleges each and every allegation contained i r ~

pa:sg"aphs 1 through 84 herein.

5 . Defendant threatened, discriminated against or retaliated against plairtiifi:

regarding ? i s compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of emp!syrrie~t because he

made good faith reports to his employer of instances of wrongdoing.

87. As a result of such conduct, plaintiff suffered darnage.

13

VVHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment as follows:

A. For Count One, an Order reinstating plaintiff to his previous

ernpbyrnent with LCCC and purging plaintiff's personnel file and all other fiies

concerning plaintiff of any reference to any discipline or termination, pius back pay and

front pay;

5. For Count Two, an amount in excess of $50,000, including punitive

damages, plus interest;

C. For Plaintiff's attorneys' fees pursuant to 43 Pa.C.S. $7425;

D. For costs, witness fees and disbursements incurred in this action;

and

E. Any such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respecttuliy Submitted,

S el ey L. Centini, Esq. u r s y H. Dyller, Esq.

BYLLER LA141 FIRM 85 North Franklin Sireel Wilkes-Barre, PA 1 Ei7QI

(570) 829-4869

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues triable to a jury.

VERIFICATION

I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct, except

those statements alleged upon information and belief, which stateme~ts I believe to be

true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the

penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 4904, relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities.

Peter Moses