After months of waiting, government study referendum before Luzerne County voters

A ballot question Luzerne County Council authorized in October is now before April 23 primary election voters to decide whether a seven-citizen commission will convene to reevaluate the government structure.

All primary voters, regardless of their affiliation, will decide that question and pick seven citizens to serve if the referendum passes.

If the answer is yes, the commission would have nine months to report findings and recommendations and another nine months if it is opting to prepare and submit government changes. An extra two months is allowable if the commission is recommending electing council by district instead of at large.

Voters would ultimately have to approve a commission recommendation for it to take effect.

The commission would be free to recommend alterations to the existing charter, an entirely new charter or a return to the prior three-commissioner/row officer structure that was replaced by home rule’s 2012 implementation. Home rule split decision-making into legislative and executive branches handled by the 11-member council and appointed county manager.

Some council members have expressed concerns the commission would advise returning to the prior third-class county code structure, but that appears unlikely based on study commission candidate responses.

The nonpartisan League of Women Voters of the Wilkes-Barre Area expressly asked the candidates if they believe the commission should propose reverting back to the previous three-commissioner system.

Thirteen of the 17 candidates responded to the organization’s survey and said no. The remaining four subsequently told the Times Leader they are not advocating a return to the prior system.

Charter conflicts

During his recent annual report, county District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce commended council for placing the commission question on the ballot.

“Without going into excruciating detail, I think everyone that’s had any experience in the county knows we have some major constitutional and other state law conflict issues with our home rule charter,” Sanguedolce said.

Sanguedolce had publicly encouraged council to authorize the referendum last July. He applauded charter drafters for creating a new form of government from scratch but said some charter provisions conflict with state law, creating confusion and “fodder for litigation.”

He told council in his recent address he is in favor of keeping the home rule structure with corrections.

“I just hope everyone gets out there to support correcting the charter we have,” he said.

The charter contains a key disclaimer that is at the root of many interpretation questions that have surfaced, saying its provisions apply “except where applicable law prevents a home rule charter from superseding state law.” The county law office is regularly tasked with issuing an opinion on how to proceed.

Council Vice Chairman Brian Thornton said charter language must be “cleaned up” for clarity because some directives could be interpreted different ways.

“Although the charter was very well written when it was introduced, it couldn’t possibly foresee all the pitfalls. As we encounter those pitfalls, we don’t know what to do,” Thornton said.

Thornton said council has tried to correct some of the conflicts, but they were deemed major structural changes that cannot be made without formation of a study commission.

“The public thinks we can just make those changes on the floor. We tried that, and it’s not allowed,” he said. “My biggest fear is that the public doesn’t understand why we’re seeking this commission.”

Thornton emphasized he supports home rule and believes the system has been “tremendously successful.”

Council Chairman John Lombardo also identified language ambiguity as a priority he wants addressed if a commission is approved.

“Any area where our charter conflicts with the law certainly needs to be number one as a talking point and be fixed,” Lombardo said.

Other changes

The size of council is expected to come up if the referendum passes.

Charter drafters selected a larger council of 11 so more people would be involved in decisions. Put another way, those seeking approval from council must convince a majority of at least six. That majority decreases if council is downsized.

But critics argue 11 is too many, making the legislative body counterproductive.

Lombardo said a five- or seven-member council could be better.

“I think the commission should really heavily look into shrinking the council to a more manageable and smaller number so it can be easier to continue to do good things,” he said.

The roles of the election board also should be defined to end continued disagreements over which duties should be performed by the board and election bureau/administration under the charter and state law, Lombardo said.

He is no longer embracing an idea to change to council elections by districts.

“I really don’t know if districts are workable. I’m finding it seems harder to do districts because of where the boundary lines are drawn. That would take a lot of effort and work,” Lombardo said.

Charter drafters opted against council districts, 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.

Advocates of districts say the change would ensure council has members from each zone.

Like the others, Lombardo supports home rule, saying it is far more transparent and a “night and day difference” compared to the prior structure.

County Controller Walter Griffith said he supports a commission activation but is not actively encouraging people to vote yes. The commission’s success will hinge on the mix of citizens elected to serve, and he said each voter must determine if they are comfortable with the choices.

“I think home rule is a great form of government, but there are problems that need to be addressed,” Griffith said.

Griffith agreed “vagueness in the charter” should be eliminated to reduce reliance on county law office guidance.

Conflicts over election board powers also should be addressed, he said.

Griffith does not support council elections by district, saying it will lead to “parochializing.”

A reduction to seven council members “could be good,” but he has reservations.

“As much as 11 opinions is unwieldy and makes meetings take forever, there might not be enough representation with seven. It would take analyzing,” Griffith said.

Candidates

The commission candidates, in the order they will appear on the ballot: Cindy Malkemes, Dallas Township; Mark Shaffer, Wilkes-Barre; Alisha Hoffman-Mirilovich, Fairview Township; Vito Malacari, Hanover Township; Claudia Glennan, Salem Township; Stephen J. Urban, Kingston; Andy Wilczak, Wright Township; Ted Ritsick, Forty Fort; Charles Sciandra, Duryea; Mark Rabo, Hazleton; Sandra DeBias, Hazle Township; Tom Bassett, Pittston; Vivian Kreidler-Licina, Nescopeck Township; Fermin Diaz, West Hazleton; Matt Mitchell, Plains Township; Timothy McGinley, Kingston; and Dave Chaump, West Pittston.

The League of Women Voters of the Wilkes-Barre Area asked commission candidates a second question as part of its primary election voters guide, which is posted at lwvwba.org: “What one feature of the county’s home rule charter would you seek to amend if elected to the Study Commission?”

The answers from the 13 submitting responses:

• Bassett: “I have no agenda and will open-mindedly study the charter carefully, seeking input from stakeholders.”

• Chaump: “Any sections of the charter that are in legal conflict with the PA state constitution.”

• Diaz: “If I’m elected, I will approach the role without any preconceptions about what needs to change.”

• Glennan: “A thorough review including research of current charters and input from the community is essential.”

• Malacari: “We must be open to examining all parts of the charter for effectiveness, such as the size of council.”

• Malkemes: “I would research other charters in order to make any decisions about amending the present charter.”

• McGinley: “I would like to listen to people regarding the charter. There have been comments about the number of council members and how they are elected.”

• Hoffman-Mirilovich: “The whole charter, resulting in recommendations based on a complete evaluation and community input.”

• Mitchell: “County council should be lowered to five members and be elected by district/region instead of at large.”

• Rabo: “The sections where council can remove any elected official as it violates the PA Constitution.”

• Ritsick: “Reduce the size of Luzerne County Council from 11 members down to either five, six or seven.”

• Shaffer: “We should focus on reviewing other charters and community feedback rather than specific agendas.”

• Wilczak: “I can’t answer this without first studying the charter in-depth and comparing it to other charters.”

Here’s a summary of responses to the question from the remaining four commission candidates, based on follow-up interviews:

• Debias: “I don’t have any particular agenda. For me, it’s just studying what we have and if there’s something we can improve.”

• Kreidler-Licina: “Unless the flaws in the charter are fixed, you’re always going to have issues. There are contradictions with state law.”

• Sciandra: “We need to look at where state law supersedes the charter and fix that. It’s evident we need to reduce the gridlock. I’m definitely in favor of five to seven council members.”

• Urban: “We need to have a different mix of people on the election board. I think that is critical.”

The county’s last 11-citizen study commission held weekly meetings — broadcast online with public input solicited at each — between June and December 2009, when it decided to take the next step and draft a proposed charter.

It released a final report and recommended charter in August 2010 that was approved by voters in the November 2010 general election.

The commission retained a solicitor and the Pennsylvania Economy League as a consultant to assist.

Candidate background

A brief background on the commission candidates based on their filings and/or public statements:

• Bassett — a music teacher who ran for state senate in the 22nd District in 2022 against Marty Flynn

• Chaump —a long-time music educator and self-employed in entertainment, real estate and new product development

• Debias — a retired nurse practitioner

• Diaz — a civil engineer and professor at Penn State Hazleton

• Glennan — a retired business development/marketing/recruitment consultant and former Naval Officer

• Kreidler-Licina — a homemaker who ran for county council last year

• Malacari — a high school government teacher

• Malkemes — an academic counselor and associate professor at the Luzerne County Community College

• McGinley — a Wyoming Valley West School Board member, prior 12-year county council member and retired nonprofit administration director

• Hoffman-Mirilovich — executive director of Action Together NEPA and In This Together NEPA

• Mitchell — a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Coordinator at the Wyoming Valley Sanitary Authority and prior county council member

• Rabo — a commercial truck driver and member of the county Redevelopment Authority and the authority’s representative on the county Blighted Property Review Committee

• Ritsick — a professional planner, a current member of the county’s Wyoming Valley Airport Advisory Board and a prior Forty Fort Borough councilman

• Sciandra — a retired consulting company operator, current chairman of the county Transportation Authority and prior member of the most recent county manager search committee

• Shaffer — a research analyst at The Institute

• Urban — an IT support coordinator for a major food distributor and prior county council member

• Wilczak — an associate professor of sociology at Wilkes University