Within the month, State College could begin redrafting an employment anti-discrimination ordinance former 171st District State Representative candidate Joanne Tosti-Vasey called "unconstitutional."

At the State College Borough Council's Oct. 13 work session, Tosti-Vasey, a member of the Centre County Advisory Council to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (HRC), raised questions about the constitutionality of the borough's employment ordinance.

Citing a 1991 Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court decision in Reading, Pa., Tosti-Vasey told the council in October State College's ordinance is unconstitutional because it asks the HRC to act as both the judge and prosecutor when investigating discrimination claims.

"The role of the prosecutor is to fashion as strong a case against the accused as the evidence will allow," the court wrote in the 1991 decision, Georgia Pacific Corp. v. City of Reading Commission on Human Relations.

"This is manifestly at odds with the impartiality required of the adjudicator."

Borough Manager Tom Fountaine said he has passed along the court case to Borough Solicitor Terry Williams, who is in the process of determining whether State College's existing legislation violates the guidelines defined by the 1991 ruling.

Currently, Fountaine said he appoints a staff member to investigate alleged discrimination and provide a report to the board that decides the case.

If Williams finds Tosti-Vasey's claims are valid, an amendment to the ordinance has been drafted that would legally codify this unofficial practice, Fountaine added.

But Williams said calling the ordinance unconstitutional is "too simplistic."

Williams said the issue lies in the administrative process established by the ordinance, not in its constitutionality.

"The ordinance is constitutional," he said. "The issue is whether there should be a further separation between the investigative function and the adjudicative function."

Williams said he hopes to finish his review by the end of the year, adding he expects the borough council to reconsider the ordinance in early 2009.

While acknowledging redrafting the legislation will not be "an overnight process," Tosti-Vasey said the borough should start to revise the ordinance within the month.

"If you're going to fix it, you need to make sure you do it right," she said. "We don't want to go back to this a third time."

Fountaine said the issue is unlikely to be resolved by the council in 2008 because of the need to render decisions on the 2009 operating budget and ordinances related to chickens and dog grooming.

Tosti-Vasey said she doesn't think the borough purposely enacted an unconstitutional provision.

"I think the constitutional one -- they had no clue about that," she said. "It just didn't feel right to me. Once I found [Georgia Pacific Corp. v. City of Reading Commission on Human Relations], that's when I brought it to them."

Tosti-Vasey also asked the board on Oct. 13 to expand the ordinance to protect pregnant women and to better enforce the legislation.