In a civil suit proceeding that took place yesterday, Judge Charles Brown ruled that a term limitation referendum voted on in 1999 does not affect State College Borough Council President Janet Knauer's ability to run in the 2001 general election.

Council member James Meyer petitioned Knauer's nomination papers and said re- nomination was a violation of the 1999 Home Rule Charter. The charter limits the number of consecutive terms to which a candidate can be elected or appointed to serve as a member of the council to a maximum of two terms or eight years in office.

The suit centered on the part of the referendum that states the amendment will become effective for incumbent members of the council "following the 1999 General Election and to those elected beginning with the General Election of 1999 thereafter."

Knauer, first elected in 1993, will finish her second term this year. Meyer's allegation is that based on the term limitation referendum, Knauer is ineligible to run again next year and must have an absence of at least two years before running again for a council position.

Brown ruled that the term limitation referendum has a retroactive effect on Knauer's ability to run for the next general election. The judge said because Knauer's first term of service was before 1999, when the voting was held on the referendum, the first term technically can not be applied through this act.

"You're wishing to count her (Knauer's) prior service on council, not knowing she'd be stopped from reelection," Brown said.

Meyer's attorney, Amos Goodall, argued the referendum's effect on Knauer was not retroactive, but that citizens voted on the legislation believing that it did affect Knauer's current eligibility. Goodall called one voter to the stand and said he had more voters ready to testify.

Following the voter's testimony, Brown mentioned the bizarre correlation this suit had to November's presidential election in Florida.

"This atmosphere is so unique. Now I'm the judge and I don't want to get into a numbers game . . . I'll make the decision and on we will go," Brown said.

Knauer's attorney, Anthony Gerace, argued the law was ambiguous enough to bring the matter to court so a judge could officially interpret it.

"You're taking an act and applying it to events that occurred before it was constructed," Gerace said.

After the ruling, Gerace said the necessity to appear before court was preordained and that the wording of the actual referendum along with the casual way in which it was written only aggravated the circumstances of the suit.

"There was an inherent ambiguity in the way that the referendum was drafted," Gerace said. "This isn't unique — the people who prepare these things aren't perfect."

Meyer agreed that when residents voted on the referendum, the wording of the question could have been clearer, but he said his main motivation in filing the petition was to create a fair chance for other candidates in the field.

"The incumbency holds extra strength in being elected . . . it would be good to break that cycle," Meyer said.

Goodall said all the information has yet to be examined and so far, there are no plans to take the matter further.

The petition from a fellow council member was unsettling for some council members and has produced concern about how this civil suit may affect their work.

Council member Elizabeth Goreham, who was there to show support for the absent Knauer, said Knauer was surprised and found the events to be disconcerting.

"This will impact our sense of collegiality and cooperation," Goreham said. "This isn't going to increase our ability to work together."

Meyer said the personal issues this case brought into play should have no affect on the council's progress.

"Reasonable people can put differences aside . . . if they take a personal slant to this, that's unfortunately on their side," Meyer said.

There are three council seats open for the 2001 General Election and three incumbents on the council have filed petitions to run for the seats.