[Ord. 89-2, 7/10/1989, § 1]
For purposes of this Part, the Borough adopts the definitions which are found at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8501; provided, however, that the term "employee," except for the Mayor and members of Borough Council, shall be limited to persons actually hired or appointed by the Borough.
[Ord. 89-2, 7/10/1989, § 2]
1. 
When an action has been brought against an employee of the Borough for damages on account of an injury to a person or property, and it is not alleged that the act of the employee which gave rise to the claim was within the scope of his or her office or duties, the Borough, upon written request of the employee, within the time stated below, shall defend the action, provided:
A. 
The employee represents, in writing, to the Borough, that he or she, in good faith believed that the act was within the scope of his or her duties as an employee.
B. 
The Borough has not determined that there was no credible basis for the employee's belief that the act was within the scope of his or her duties as an employee.
C. 
It has not been judicially determined that the act constituted a crime, actual fraud, actual malice or willful misconduct.
[Ord. 89-2, 7/10/1989, § 3]
Notice shall be deemed timely for purposes of § 1-602 hereof and 42 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 8547(a) and 8548(a) only if received within 14 days of service, upon such employee, of the original process or the initial notice of the commencement of the action, suit or proceeding in question. The Borough Council may extend this time, at any time; provided, that the failure to meet it does not prejudice the defense of the action brought against the employee.
[Ord. 89-2, 7/10/1989, § 6]
The provision of this Part shall not prohibit the Borough from defending or participating in the defense of any other employee, as defined in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8501, under the terms of § 1-602, hereof.