Luzerne County study commission focuses on term limits and compensation

In a recent meeting, Luzerne County Government Study Commission members discussed term limits and compensation.

The panel has been meeting regularly to assess potential county home rule charter changes and aims to place its proposal on the November 2025 ballot. Voters will then decide whether to switch to the new design or keep the system in effect since January 2012.

Serving on the commission are Vito Malacari (vice chair), Cindy Malkemes (treasurer), Timothy McGinley (chair), Matt Mitchell, Ted Ritsick (secretary), Mark Shaffer and Stephen J. Urban.

Term limits

Council members, the district attorney and controller all have consecutive three-term limits, and the charter treats partial appointed and elected terms the same as full elected four-year terms in defining the limit.

As a result, more than four years were shaved from the maximum county DA Sam Sanguedolce can serve because he was initially appointed and then elected to partial terms when predecessor Stefanie Salavantis resigned to run for county judge.

Mitchell said he supports getting rid of term limits and leaving it up to voters to determine how long someone should remain in office.

Malkemes said she strongly supports term limits but is open to counting only full terms in the limit. Long-term incumbents may be more likely to win re-election due to name recognition, and she said it’s important to “allow other people in.”

Ritsick said he believes rewording is necessary to address “legal ambiguity” for the DA. He has suggested making provisions governing the DA’s Office more in line with the state county code, which governs non-home rule counties and does not have a term limit.

Malacari said he is a proponent of term limits and believes the public supports them. He agreed with redefining the terms to eliminate partial ones so those in office are “not shorted,” saying he disagreed with what is happening to Sanguedolce. He also proposed making the term limit for council permanent, instead of allowing members to sit out one term and then start the clock over by running again.

Shaffer said he agrees with not allowing council members to take a break and return again after they have reached the limit. Council members don’t lose the “incumbency advantage” by skipping an election cycle, he said. He also agreed with not counting partial terms.

Urban said he believes in term limits but not a ban prohibiting former term-maxed council members from eventually running again. He said it was hard to get people to serve, and council needs members with experience and knowledge. He is also against counting partial terms in the limit.

McGinley said Sanguedolce was “not treated fairly” regarding term limits. He also pointed out Mitchell and others have served short, appointed terms to fill vacancies on council that should not be treated as full terms.

Compensation

Council members receive $8,000 annually. The charter allows council to approve a compensation change for those elected to new terms if it acts at least 12 months prior to the commencement of a new term. Council members never acted on that option.

Council also sets the controller’s compensation and can alter it at least a year prior to a new term. There has been no change since council voted in November 2012 to increase the annual salary from $36,562 to $64,999, starting with the controller elected in 2013.

For the DA, the compensation is set at $1,000 below the salary paid to a county Court of Common Pleas judge. The state compensation for a county Court of Common Pleas judge is set at $227,411 in 2025, which puts the DA salary at $226,411, according to the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

Mitchell questioned if compensation for council should rise with inflation.

Malkemes said she would favor some type of automatic raise for council. If the commission does not make a recommendation, she predicted the compensation would remain the same until the next panel is formed, which could be in a decade or longer.

Ritsick said a new baseline should be established for council, particularly because the commission is recommending reducing council from 11 to seven members. However, he said he does not support automatic increases unless they are tied to specific criteria.

Malacari agreed the compensation must be addressed for both council and the controller and suggested finding a way to take the controller compensation out of council’s hands. Voting for compensation increases is a “poison pill” for elected officials, he said.

Shaffer pondered whether the controller compensation can be set as a percentage of another position, such as a state auditor, to mirror the automatic charter formula established for the DA. He concurred with Malkemes that council is unlikely to increase compensation on its own. While he understands public service requires a sacrifice in pay, a controller/auditor would make significantly more than the compensation here working in the private sector or even municipal government positions, he said. He also agreed it is a challenge attracting council candidates.

Urban said compensation is a “conundrum” and suggested requiring council to vote on compensation for future council members and the controller when it reorganizes every two years following council elections. This would force council to “put it to a vote” without eliminating council’s authority over finances, he said.

McGinley said a new council compensation should be set in the proposed new charter. Subsequent action by council members is unlikely because “it really puts them in a negative situation going forward with elections,” he said. He proposed establishing a neutral three-person panel to periodically review the council and controller compensation every five years or so to take it out of council’s hands.

The Pennsylvania Economy League, a commission consultant, said panel members will have to clearly communicate their reasoning and plan to voters because compensation and raises can be controversial.