On April 16, Northampton County Council voted unanimously to approve across-the-board pay hikes, averaging 4.5 percent, for 228 county workers in 14 different clerical job titles. Deputy Administrator Cathy Allen told council it would cost about $307,000, and would be above and beyond whatever was being negotiated in union contracts. A human resources memo complained that "the county has struggled in recruiting and maintaining staff in many of the clerical positions throughout the county."

A more fair and equitable pay rate was proposed for some of the lower level clerical positions, which affect both union and non-union workers. This raise included 17 clerks who work for magisterial district judges and are already topped out at $19.20 per hour. Now, the John Brown administration is calling it a "scrivener's error." At the July 2 meeting, Solicitor Ryan Durkin asked Council to roll it back, calling it a pay raise that was never intended to be made.

A scrivener's error is a typo, the kind of mistake that usually occurs in copying legal descriptions in deeds although it can occur in other matters like settlement offers. According to what is known as the doctrine of scrivener's error, it can only be corrected by evidence that is clear, convincing, and precise.

To Hayden Phillips, council's most conservative member, nothing about this is clear convincing or precise. After listening to the discussion for about thirty minutes, he said, "I'm totally confused."

Scott Parsons did believe that the raise was intended only to apply to entry level clerks. But Lamont McClure believed "lower level clerical positions" applied to all clerical positions, which are lower on the totem pole than other job classifications. He pointed out that there had been a record number of retirements the previous year, and thought this pay raise was an attempt to keep more experienced workers in the fold.

That meant nothing to Mat Benol, who had hung a plaque containing the Ten Commandments on the wall before the meeting and then took a picture of it with his cell phone. He and Seth Vaughn both spoke of being from the private sector. "When you're at the top of the pay scale, you're at the top of the pay scale," reasoned Vaughn. "No raise." Benol complained that these workers were engaged in an opportunistic attempt to capitalize on someone's error, and later added that this would just open the floodgates to everyone rushing in to demand more money.

This drew the ire of Ken Kraft, who said the total amount of money involved is $31,000. "We're not talking about 3,000 people like in some hypothetical crazy idea," he said.

"We're talking about people at $19.00," echoed McClure. "I have not heard much outrage about people getting $100,000... The fact of the matter is that these are people."

Bethlehem Attorney Chris Spadoni, who represents these workers, called them the front line of our judicial system.

Council voted 5-4 to table the matter and refer it to Ken Kraft's Personnel Committee. McClure joined Benol, Vaughn and Glenn Geissinger in voting against the motion to table, but that's because he appeared to be ready to reject any resolution that withdrew the pay hike.

After the meeting, some of these impacted magisterial district judge employees had a rare informal discussion with Executive John Brown and council members Scott Parsons and Bob Werner. Brown could be heard telling these workers that they are appreciated, and they seemed to make some headway in resolving their differences. Brown was asked about better security measures for magisterial employees, and said he would look into any proposal he receives. Magisterial District Judge employee Linda Sweeney sounded hopeful.

Spadoni had told council earlier, quoting former Executive Jerry Seyfried, that nobody wins when there are lawsuits involving different branches of government.