Scranton resident Bob Bolus entered the legal fray over the filling of a Lackawanna County commissioner vacancy.
Bolus filed a lawsuit April 10 in Lackawanna County Court against Democratic Lackawanna County Commissioner Bill Gaughan that seeks to bar him from having county-paid legal representation in pending litigation over the vacancy of former Commissioner Matt McGloin.
Gaughan and the county initiated litigation last month seeking to remove the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee from the process of replacing McGloin, a Democrat who resigned in late February.
The vacancy litigation pits Gaughan/the county against the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee over whether the vacancy should be filled pursuant to the county’s Home Rule Charter or a state court rule. The charter process had the Democratic Committee picking three candidates to forward to county judges, who then would select one to fill the McGloin vacancy. The Gaughan/county challenge to the charter process claims it is trumped by Pennsylvania Rule of Judicial Administration 1908 of 2019, which says the county court — not a political party — shall receive applications from any interested candidates for the position.
Lackawanna County Senior Judges Carmen Minora, Robert Mazzoni and Vito Geroulo sitting as a panel will hear oral arguments Tuesday in the vacancy litigation.
The lawsuit by Bolus, a Republican, raises arguments similar to those of Republican Lackawanna County Commissioner Chris Chermak — mainly that Gaughan acted unilaterally and if he wants to pursue the litigation, he should do so individually, with his own personal attorney and pay for his own legal bills.
County Comissioner Chris Chermak listens to commissioner Bill Gaughan’s comments at the conclusion of the Lackawanna County commissioners meeting at the Lackawanna County Government Center in Scranton on Wednesday, March 19, 2025. (REBECCA PARTICKA/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER)
Bolus has been a vocal critic of Gaughan for years and has portrayed him as a cartoon skunk on a tractor-trailer festooned with political messages. Bolus filed his lawsuit on a “pro-se” basis, meaning without an attorney, and as a tort against Gaughan, and not as part of the vacancy litigation. Seeking a judgment in excess of $50,000, Bolus also filed on April 11 a companion petition for a preliminary injunction to stop Gaughan from using taxpayer funds to litigate the vacancy issue.
“By the time a civil case is litigated, the tax payer funds will have have been spent already,” Bolus’ petition for an injunction says.
As of Thursday afternoon, the court had not taken any action on Bolus’ injunction petition. Whether he has legal standing to pursue such a lawsuit or whether it follows rules of civil procedure, or whether it might be rendered moot if the vacancy dispute is resolved first, all remain to be seen.
Gaughan also had not yet formally responded in court to Bolus’ lawsuit. In a phone interview Thursday, Gaughan said: “I did receive it and I had a very, very good chuckle, a good laugh. I don’t take Bob Bolus seriously at all. He’s a fruit fly. He’s a nuisance to society and this will most likely get dismissed, like almost every other lawsuit he’s had.”
Bolus argues he has legal standing to pursue the lawsuit as a property owner, resident and taxpayer in the county.
Last week, the panel of judges did not allow the Democratic Committee’s top candidate, former county economic development Director Brenda Sacco, to enter the vacancy litigation as an intervenor, ruling that she has no legal standing in the matter and her interests are adequately represented by the committee.
The Democratic Committee also contends that Gaughan and the county lack legal standing to pursue the vacancy litigation. But Gaughan and the county reject that claim, citing law giving municipalities and their officials standing to challenge the constitutionality of actions affecting their government functions and interests.