Luzerne County DA expresses support for government study commission

Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce sent county council an email Tuesday afternoon expressing support for a Nov. 7 general election ballot question seeking a home rule government study commission.

Council is scheduled to vote at its 6 p.m. meeting this evening on the introduction of an ordinance placing the study commission on the ballot.

If it is introduced, council would then have to hold a public hearing and approve the ordinance at a subsequent meeting for the question to appear on the ballot.

The agenda says council will be voting on the same question a majority had rejected in January, which asks voters if they want to convene a seven-citizen commission to assess the home rule charter and recommend whether to keep it, revise it or try a different structure, which could include reverting back to the prior three-commissioner system.

“As you know, I was and continue to be, greatly in favor of addressing the multiple, catastrophic issues with some of the provisions of the current charter,” Sanguedolce wrote.

The charter, which took effect in January 2012, has “numerous instances where it is in conflict with” state laws, Sanguedolce said.

“I applaud the original drafters for their work starting a new form of government from scratch; however, after twelve years of trial, certain glaring conflicts have arisen,” the DA wrote. “Not only are they a constant source of confusion for those officials subject to the charter, but they are fodder for litigation regardless of which decision council makes amid conflicting charter provisions and state laws.”

Sanguedolce brought up a March 2021 vote by six of 11 council members to declare the elected district attorney seat vacant.

For background, a council majority said the home rule charter indicates no district attorney shall file a petition for nomination or election or become a candidate for any other elective public office unless he or she first resigns from office.

At the time of council’s vote, then-DA Stefanie Salavantis had filed a petition to run for county judge. However, Salavantis had said she would resign when the petition challenge period ended and she was certain her name would appear on that year’s primary election ballot.

Salavantis, who is now a county judge, had said she was not required to step down under state law, which she asserted supersedes the county charter. When council forced the issue, she filed an action in county court arguing council has no legal authority to remove an elected DA or select a successor as stated in the charter.

Council ended up withdrawing its vacancy declaration and accepting Salavantis’ March 25 resignation, and her litigation was withdrawn.

In his letter to council, Sanguedolce said “it could not be clearer” that a DA cannot be removed from office by a vote of six county council members.

“As I stated at the meeting where a charter vote arose earlier this year, in order to remove an elected dog catcher, the District Attorney or Attorney General is required to institute a full lawsuit decided by a court,” he wrote.

Describing the past situation as a “major embarrassment for our county,” Sanguedolce said his office had been promised the issue would be studied and corrected.

“Now, 869 days later, not only has it not been studied and corrected, it has not ever been raised,” the DA wrote. “To permit this practice to stand since 2021 is a prime example of why our charter needs amending.”

Sanguedolce also brought up the county ethics commission, which includes the DA as a commission member under the charter.

He said the council-adopted ethics code that must be followed by the commission is “unworkable,” and “lacks direction and procedure, contradicts guidelines in state law, and violates or is silent on the protections required to ensure due process.”

“This code has been in need of a complete overhaul since its inception, and yet, no one on the commission is aware of a single meeting or discussion on the topic,” he wrote.

Correcting issues through a charter amendment ballot question in each election means “issues cannot be corrected for years to come,” the DA said.

“Costly litigation will be required to resolve many of these issues before that time,” he asserted.

Sanguedolce said he learned through his many travels throughout the county that “residents are clamoring for this government to be fixed.”

“They voted to see action, not delay and frustration,” he said.

He acknowledged the county faces “a small risk” that an elected citizen study commission would recommend going back to commissioners.

“The public, in my experience, is not asking for that result, but rather an improvement on what we have, and I do not believe the public would vote in favor of such a change were it even recommended,” he wrote. “It is our duty to educate the public, support the right study commission candidates, and move Luzerne County forward. The answer is not to take the voice away from the public because they may make a decision with which we disagree. Such is the action of dictatorships, not democracies.”

Sanguedolce said he will stand with council members who support correcting issues the county has faced over the past decade.

“This form of government has become known for kicking the proverbial can down the road. Let’s be the group that acts to make Luzerne County better,” he wrote.

Questions have surfaced about the legality of council pursuing a study commission ballot question while another general election ballot question already has been approved asking voters if they want to reconstitute the county election board.

Sanguedolce disagreed with the argument two conflicting questions cannot appear on the ballot simultaneously but said rescinding the election board ballot question would “cure any potential issue for the greater good of fixing the charter in its entirety.”

Council’s Tuesday voting meeting starts at 6 p.m. at the courthouse, with instructions for the remote attendance option posted under council’s online meetings link at luzernecounty.org.