close

Bentleyville police chief, former secretary sue for defamation

Several borough council members, current secretary named in lawsuit

By Mike Jones 5 min read
1 / 2
Bentleyville Municipal Complex
2 / 2
Bentleyville police Chief Richard Young

Bentleyville’s police chief and former secretary/treasurer are suing several borough council members and a municipal employee over claims they were defamed over false accusations they had misappropriated public money.

Bentleyville police Chief Richard Young and Tammy Stamm, who served as treasurer/secretary from 2018 until she was terminated earlier this year, filed the civil lawsuit Friday in Washington County Court of Common Pleas over an “avalanche of accusations” of misconduct that they say were demonstrably false.

“This was really a campaign, for whatever reason, waged by certain members of borough council to make their lives miserable,” said attorney Bill Labovitz, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Young and Stamm.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are council President Joseph Pigeon III, Vice President Timothy Miller, council members Kimberly Sacco, John Hackinson Jr. and Kathryn Rakosky, along with Danielle Ott, who currently serves as the borough’s secretary and treasurer.

According to the lawsuit, Stamm was hired in January 2018 by the council and terminated on Jan. 5 of this year, just 17 days before her pension was to be vested. The borough failed to fully pay for her accrued sick time and unused vacation days, while also the final paycheck was at a lower hourly level than the current rate when she was terminated, the lawsuit claims. The solicitor apparently told Stamm that her compensation was under a post-termination version, while the lawsuit claims she is still owed $21,974.

Following Stamm’s termination, Sacco began spending “extensive time” in the borough offices searching records looking for wrong-doing. Sacco, who previously served as the borough secretary, blamed Young for her loss of that position, according to the lawsuit, although details of what led up to her separation were not included in the complaint.

The council’s Finance Committee issued a report in April, which was not authorized by the rest of borough council, seemingly accusing Stamm and Young of misappropriating funds. The report was organized under tabs that included “failure to follow procedures,” “misclassification of expenses,” “potential payroll irregularities” and “potential issues with the Police Grant Account,” according to the lawsuit.

The report also claimed that “financial information was withheld from Council and the public” and that excess payroll expenses were hidden by accounting. It claimed the police chief’s overtime pay was entered in as a code reporting his pay as “Road Supervisory Salary” while “more red flags” were found in the Police Grant/donation account.

“Read as a whole and in context, the Report conveyed to its readers that Plaintiffs deliberately concealed Borough expenditures, paid themselves for time they did not work, misused Borough funds through an unauthorized account, and acted together to do so,” the lawsuit asserts.

Nearly 30 copies were distributed to the public – including one available for public inspection at the borough building – with identifiable personal information included in the documents. That personal information included unredacted Social Security numbers, home addresses, driver’s license numbers, and employee benefit enrollment information of current and former borough officials, including the two plaintiffs.

At a borough meeting in April shortly after the report was released, Ott claimed the profit-and-loss statement showed a deficit of about $309,000 over the past three years, while some of the other defendants used the words “unauthorized,” misused” and “misappropriated” during the meeting, according to the lawsuit.

But Stamm has denied the allegations and the lawsuit claims that larger expenditures were presented to and approved by council or its police committee, while all checks included signatures of the council president and vice president, in addition to Stamm’s authorization. All overtime or paid time off requests fell under the borough’s long-standing practices or the police department’s union bargaining agreement, the lawsuit claims.

In a group text with the police committee, mayor and police chief in July, Sacco allegedly accused Young and Stamm of “theft of services” with how they took their paid time off, according to the lawsuit.

Miller apparently told a person at a hog roast in Hiller in August 2025 that Young was pocketing fine money from the police department, the lawsuit contends. Young denied that assertion, noting any fine money is paid through the courts and then remitted to the police department, which has collected $413,782 from July 2014 through September 2025 and deposited it into the general fund.

“Neither Plaintiff took, misappropriated or misused any borough funds,” the lawsuit states.

But the lawsuit claims that borough residents have asked Young and Stamm where the “missing money” was while they are out in public, and both have suffered emotional distress during this time due to the accusations.

“The avalanche of accusations and false statements made about my clients, Rich Young and Tammy Stamm, have really been a nightmare for them in terms of their reputation around town and in the county,” Labovitz said in a phone interview Tuesday. “They’re viewed by some as crooks and engaging in wrong-doing. This lawsuit is about clearing their name and getting money damages for what they’ve suffered by Bentleyville Borough Council.”

Bentleyville solicitor Dennis Makel said the borough received a copy of the lawsuit Monday and he immediately turned it over to the municipality’s insurance carrier for review. He declined to comment on the accusations.

Young continues to serve in his role as borough police chief, which he’s held since 2014, while the lawsuit states that Stamm has declined to cash her final paycheck from the borough over her claims that she was underpaid for that final invoice. Both plaintiffs are suing the defendants for defamation and false light invasion of privacy, while Stamm is also suing for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Starting at /week.