CONNOQUENESSING TWP — On a night when township Supervisor Stephen Misko was absent from the board's monthly meeting, the other two supervisors voted to sue him.

Township residents at Wednesday's meeting also were dissatisfied with a big hole in the township's $678,800 budget for 2010, but received the same answers from Chairwoman Evelyn Hockenberry and Supervisor Jack Kaltenbaugh on all topics: "No comment."

Immediately after the meeting began, Hockenberry and Kaltenbaugh adjourned to an executive session which lasted about two minutes, then emerged from a back office and quickly passed a motion to file a civil suit in the amount of $55,000 against Misko and former township supervisor Ray Kroll for "mismanagement."

"They went forward with that because they knew on Monday I would not be there," Misko said by phone Wednesday night.

Hockenberry said the suit stems from the purchase of a $55,000 piece of brush cutting equipment in 2006.

According to Hockenberry, she voted against the purchase while Misko, then chairman of the supervisors, and Kroll voted to buy the equipment.

The township now faces a lawsuit from Cleveland Brothers, the equipment's manufacturer, claiming the township bought the apparatus for its road department then reneged on paying for it.

Kaltenbaugh initially denied the equipment worked, but that claim was dispelled by a court-ordered test of the machine in August.

Kaltenbaugh and attorneys from each side witnessed it work, and the case remains in court.

"The mower head was purchased legally at a public meeting, and we were going to piggyback with the state for the financing," Misko said.

After Kaltenbaugh was elected to Kroll's seat in 2008, he and Hockenberry voted to rescind the equipment purchase.

"I told them it was a breach of contract. There is nothing wrong with that machine. In my opinion, there are personal reasons why Mr. Kaltenbaugh did not want that piece of equipment," Misko said.

Misko added that a cross-complaint would have to be filed against himself and Kroll, in conjunction with the suit against the township by Cleveland Brothers, in order to hold them responsible.

"Steve Misko and Ray Kroll were acting as agents of the township, so who's suing who?" Misko said.

Neither Hockenberry nor Kaltenbaugh would answer who was to be named as plaintiff in the civil suit, nor would they say whether township dollars would fund it.

"That's a matter of litigation and we can't discuss it," Hockenberry said.

Litigation was a large part of the township's 2010 budget; $20,000 was allocated toward legal fees, doubling the amount spent in 2009.

Part of those legal fees will be used to appeal a Nov. 29 decision against the township by the state Labor Relations Board.

The board ordered the township to pay two former street workers who were fired in April back pay and benefits, including interest at 6 percent.

Furthermore, the township was ordered to end interference with union labor business, including resistance to collective bargaining.

Hockenberry said that, despite the matter being brought up by Misko at the board's Dec. 29 budget meeting, no money has been allocated in the 2010 budget to cover the men's back pay or benefits should the appeal fail.

"We'll cross that bridge when we come to it," Hockenberry said.

Several residents said that was not a responsible course of action, and the township needs to plan for that possibility, at which point Hockenberry adjourned the meeting.