Columbia Deserves Clarity: Why One Person Shouldn’t Be Both Borough Manager and Police Chief

By ColumbiaPA.Online Editorial Board

Columbia is a community that shows up—at parades, fundraisers, school events, and public meetings. We look one another in the eye. We care about how our town is run. That’s why an important governance question deserves thorough, public discussion:

Is it appropriate—or even permissible—for one person to serve as both the Borough’s chief administrative officer and the head of its police department?

This article explains why that dual role is problematic, how Pennsylvania law frames the issue, what “incompatibility in fact” means, and what transparent fixes look like. It also addresses the wider context of leaked communications, committee access concerns, and public trust—because structure and culture go hand in hand.

The Heart of the Issue: Two Hats, One Chain of Command

In many small boroughs, tight budgets and limited staff sometimes lead to dual appointments. But combining the Borough Manager position (the top administrative officer) and the Police Chief position (the top law‑enforcement officer) creates a built‑in conflict: the person who manages borough operations—including oversight, budgeting, and personnel—would also be the person being managed in their police role.

That is self‑supervision, and it undermines checks and balances. Good governance is not just about good people; it’s about a structure that prevents conflicts before they arise.

Pennsylvania’s Borough Code recognizes that multiple offices can be held by the same person only when the roles are not inherently at odds. The statute says:

“Unless there is incompatibility in fact, an elective or appointive officer of the borough shall be eligible to serve on any board, commission, bureau or other agency… and may accept appointments under the statute.” (8 Pa.C.S. §1104(a))

That phrase—“incompatibility in fact”—is vital. It means the practical realities of the two jobs must not collide. If one role supervises, budgets for, evaluates, or disciplines the other, the positions are functionally incompatible. In practice, a Borough Manager commonly influences police budgeting, policy implementation, and risk management, while a Police Chief executes law‑enforcement operations—all within the same organizational chart. That’s an obvious collision.

What the Ethics Act Requires: Avoid the Conflict—and the Appearance of It

Pennsylvania’s Ethics Act is about protecting public trust. It prohibits conflicts of interest in plain terms:

“No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.” (65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a))

The law also bars both seeking and accepting improper influence—reminding us that integrity is not only about actual wrongdoing, but also about structures that tempt or appear to permit it:

“No person shall offer or give… anything of monetary value… based on the offeror’s or donor’s understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official… would be influenced thereby.” (§1103(b))
“No public official… shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value… based on any understanding… that the… official action… would be influenced thereby.” (§1103(c))

When one person is both the administrator (who sets or influences operational priorities and budgets) and the police chief (who implements enforcement and could be evaluated by the administrator), the opportunity for conflicting incentives is inherent. Even if the person acts with perfect integrity, the public’s confidence is put at risk by the appearance that one hat might influence the other. That’s exactly what the Ethics Act is designed to prevent.

Police Roles Are Treated as Especially Sensitive in State Law

The Borough Code imposes special restrictions on police officers holding certain offices, reflecting the legislature’s concern about divided loyalties and undue influence. For example:

“No police officer or firefighter may hold an elective office of the borough that employs the police officer or firefighter.” (8 Pa.C.S. §1104(f)(1))

While this specific clause addresses elective offices (like mayor or council) and not appointed ones, it underscores a consistent policy theme: police authority should not be mixed with other centers of governmental power that could compromise independence or accountability. Municipal governance resources similarly emphasize the need for clear separation of police operations from competing administrative interests, to reduce legal exposure and preserve public confidence.

Why This Matters in Columbia Right Now

Columbia residents value fair process. Recent local tensions—questions about leaked emails and who gets to serve on committees—have fueled a broader concern: Is power in our borough concentrated in too few hands, without adequate transparency or oversight? The dual‑role problem magnifies that worry.

Best‑practice guidance for Pennsylvania municipalities highlights the importance of transparent governance structures and clear delineation of authority—especially around police oversight—to avoid liability and public confusion. Training materials for Pennsylvania mayors and municipal officials specifically call out the need to keep policing decisions professionally insulated and to clarify who sets policy versus who executes it.

In short: Structure drives outcomes. When roles blur, accountability blurs with them.

The Legal and Practical Test: “Incompatibility in Fact”

So how do we judge whether two roles are incompatible? Consider these practical indicators (drawn from the Borough Code’s “incompatibility in fact” standard and municipal best practices):

1. Direct Supervision: Does one role evaluate, discipline, or otherwise supervise the other? If yes, incompatible.
2. Budgetary Control: Does one role prepare, influence, or approve the other’s budget or staffing? If yes, incompatible.
3. Policy vs. Operations: Are strategic policies set by the same person who enforces them in the field? If yes, incompatible.
4. Risk and Liability: Does combining roles obscure responsibility when something goes wrong (discipline, litigation, insurance claims)? If yes, incompatible.
5. Public Perception: Would a reasonable resident think decisions in one role could be shaped by the interests of the other? Under the Ethics Act’s spirit, if yes, incompatible.

By these measures, Borough Manager + Police Chief is a classic case of incompatibility. Even if the law does not list this exact pairing as “forbidden” in a single sentence, the combination fails the statute’s incompatibility test and the Ethics Act’s conflict‑of‑interest standard.

What Good Governance Looks Like: Practical Steps for Columbia

1) Separate the Roles—Formally and Publicly.
Council should ensure that the Borough Manager and Police Chief are distinct positions, occupied by different people, with a clear chain of command and written job descriptions. This aligns with the Borough Code’s incompatibility framework and reduces legal exposure.

2) Adopt or Reaffirm a Conflict‑of‑Interest Policy.
A locally adopted policy should mirror the Ethics Act, explicitly addressing dual roles, recusal requirements, and reporting procedures for perceived conflicts. The Ethics Act’s §1103 is the baseline; local policy can go further.

3) Clarify Police Governance.
Pennsylvania training materials stress the unique governance model for police in incorporated municipalities and the crucial working relationship between elected officials and police leadership. A publicly posted police governance memo should specify who sets policy (civilian authority), who manages day‑to‑day operations (police leadership), and how oversight occurs.

4) Make Committee Access Transparent.
Publish how committees are formed, how vacancies are advertised, how residents can apply, and the criteria for selection. The Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook and mayoral/borough manuals emphasize openness and procedure to build trust.

5) Address Communications Head‑On.
Leaked emails are a symptom of information mistrust. Commit to proactive disclosure where lawful, use the Sunshine Act as a floor (not a ceiling), and adopt a protocol for handling confidential information appropriately while sharing as much as possible publicly. (See Deskbook guidance on Right‑to‑Know and Sunshine principles.)

6) Invite Public Dialogue.
Hold a dedicated town hall on “Ethics, Dual Roles, and Transparency in Columbia.” Publish Q&As, invite written questions in advance, and include the borough solicitor to explain legal standards. Transparency is a practice, not a press release.

Quoted Law & Guidance (for Readers’ Reference)

• Borough Code – Incompatibility in Fact: “Unless there is incompatibility in fact, an elective or appointive officer of the borough shall be eligible to serve on any board, commission, bureau or other agency created by or for the borough or any borough office created or authorized by statute and may accept appointments under the statute.” (8 Pa.C.S. §1104(a))
• Borough Code – Police Officers Holding Offices: “No police officer or firefighter may hold an elective office of the borough that employs the police officer or firefighter.” (8 Pa.C.S. §1104(f)(1))
• Pennsylvania Ethics Act – Conflict of Interest: “No public official or public employee shall engage in conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest.” (65 Pa.C.S. §1103(a))
  “No person shall offer or give… anything of monetary value… based on the… understanding that the vote, official action or judgment of the public official… would be influenced thereby.” (§1103(b))
  “No public official or public employee shall solicit or accept anything of monetary value… based on any understanding… that the… official action… would be influenced thereby.” (§1103(c))
• Governance & Best‑Practice Resources:
  Pennsylvania Mayors Association training on the mayor‑chief relationship and police governance responsibilities (webinar materials).
  Pennsylvania Borough Mayors’ Manual and the Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook on ethics, conflicts of interest, and committee governance.
  Practitioner‑level discussion of Borough Code roles and the mayor’s law‑enforcement authority—helpful for understanding why separation of functions matters.

A Respectful Call to Action

Columbia’s strength is its people—and the trust we place in one another. Separating the Borough Manager and Police Chief roles is not a criticism of any one person; it is a commitment to a structure that protects everyone: residents, employees, officers, and elected officials alike.

Let’s choose the path that reflects our values:

• Clear lines of authority
• Transparent processes
• Ethical safeguards that meet both the letter and the spirit of Pennsylvania law

Because Columbia doesn’t just deserve good government—it deserves confidence in that government.

For readers who want to explore further, link the following resources:

• 8 Pa.C.S. §1104 – Appointments and incompatible offices (Justia synopsis)
• Pennsylvania Ethics Act §1103 – Restricted activities (PA State Ethics Commission)
• “The Mayor, The Chief, and The Law” – Pennsylvania Mayors Association webinar materials (PDF)
• Pennsylvania Legislator’s Municipal Deskbook – Ethics & Conflicts of Interest
• Borough Mayors’ Manual (PA DCED)
• High Swartz LLP overview of the Borough Code and mayor/police authority