So, it's okay that they refuse to swear in the elected auditors because you think the position is unimportant? In what other circumstances do you think it's okay for government entities to ignore the law?
The auditors have duties beside auditing, and the law[1] explicitly say they "shall perform the other duties of the office" even if an accountant has been appointed. There is clearly a reason the town government dosen't want anyone to preform one or more of these other duties.
> The supervisors assured me that I would be able to swear in at either the next meeting
> three days after that meeting, I received an email from the township manager to the effect of, "sorry, we hired a CPA to do that job and we have no need for elected auditors to oversee the township."
Is seems these town meetings are roughly 3 weeks apart, and he has contacted various people who have not returned his call. The previous auditor (elected) describes as being given a "runaround" also.
So yes, they didn't refuse, they just ghosted his attempts to resolve the issue. What's the big difference? As long as they stay silent, they technically didn't refuse? At what point can you say they are acting in bad-faith?
The auditors have duties beside auditing, and the law[1] explicitly say they "shall perform the other duties of the office" even if an accountant has been appointed. There is clearly a reason the town government dosen't want anyone to preform one or more of these other duties.
[1]: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/US/HTM/1933/0/0069....