Luzerne County may be convening a government study commission for fourth time

If Luzerne County Council proceeds with a government study commission ballot question as expected for the 2024 primary election, it would be the fourth time county voters must decide whether to convene a panel of citizens to examine the current structure and possibly recommend something new.

The first elected commission was activated five decades ago, in 1973 — a year after the state’s enactment of the home rule law.

County voters authorized a seven-member commission but ended up rejecting the panel’s ensuing recommendation to switch to home rule in 1974.

That defeated charter would have created a nine-member council elected in regional districts and a county executive elected at large, or countywide. It also abolished all elected row offices except the controller and district attorney.

The campaign was heated back then, and those pushing to keep governance in the hands of three full-time elected commissioners and elected row officers prevailed.

Second commission

In 2001, voters convened an 11-member study commission, but the plan hammered out by the commission lost at the polls two years later.

As with the prior proposal, this charter called for a nine-member council and an elected county executive. However, three of the council members would have been elected at large instead of making them all by district. It also kept the elected DA and controller and eliminated seven elected row offices.

That proposed charter was on the November 2003 ballot at the same time voters were set to select the next set of three elected county commissioners.

Then-commissioner candidates Greg Skrepenak and Todd Vonderheid fought the charter. The men urged voters to give them a chance to turn around the county without home rule, going as far as ceremoniously signing notarized contracts with the people vowing to implement fair personnel, budget and competitive-bidding policies similar to those in the proposed charter.

Democrats Skrepenak and Vonderheid won, and the charter was defeated. If that charter had been approved, Skrepenak, Vonderheid and then-Republican minority commissioner Stephen A. Urban would have served as the countywide council members through 2007.

Third time charm

County voters selected the 11-member study commission that drafted the current charter in the May 2009 primary election.

Voters approved the recommended charter in the November 2010 general election, putting an end to the commissioner/row officer structure in effect more than 150 years.

The current charter has 11 council members elected countywide and an appointed manager, with all row offices eliminated except for the DA and controller.

There were some significant changes from prior home rule charter proposals.

Charter drafters rejected the prior suggestion of an elected executive, saying an elected manager would not have minimum educational/work experience requirements and that the county would be stuck with the chosen official until the next election if he/she did not rise to the challenge. They also did not like the concept of a manager having to seek political donations to get elected — and possibly seek reelection.

The charter drafters also opted against council districts proposed in the past, arguing that council members are supposed to focus on what’s best for the county as a whole, not a specific zone. Potential candidates for council would also have a tougher time beating an ingrained council member within a district, they said.

A larger council of 11 was selected by the commission so more people would be involved in decisions.

Charter critics — and even some charter-supporting seated council members — maintain 11 is too many.

Commission process

The study commission formation question and actual commission candidates must be on the same ballot, but those elected only serve if voters agree to create the commission.

Study commissions have 18 months to decide if a change in government is warranted and, if so, prepare a recommendation on how to proceed.

The last two commissions retained a solicitor and the Pennsylvania Economy League as a consultant to assist.

Some council members want the commission to stick with home rule if it determines changes are warranted.

Council Vice Chairman John Lombardo has said he will push for a study commission formation question that would require the panel to keep a home rule charter, as opposed to options for the committee to recommend reverting back to the prior system or another state-structured plan.

According to the state’s home rule handbook, amendments to an existing home rule charter can be proposed to the voters by a government study commission under its authority to recommend actions it deems advisable consistent with its functions.

The handbook cites an example of a Lehigh County government study commission that “found the existing charter was working well, but needed some fine tuning.” It recommended a series of amendments that were placed on the ballot over three elections in 1996 and 1997, with voters approving nine and rejecting six, said the handbook, which is compiled by the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services.

Lombardo expects council will vote next month to introduce an ordinance placing a study commission on the 2024 primary election ballot. Council would have to hold a public hearing and approve the referendum at a subsequent meeting to proceed.

Lombardo said he believes a council majority is now supportive of a study commission because council members “hit roadblocks” in their attempts to make meaningful charter alterations when they were informed such changes are not allowable, cannot be made without formation of a study commission or would require court action.