Luzerne County Government Study Commission assesses creation of prison, public defender’s boards

Luzerne County’s Government Study Commission recently reached a decision on the possible creation of a county jail oversight board and public defender advisory board.

The commission is drafting a revised county home rule charter for voters to consider in the November general election.

Initially, the commission considered a mandate for council to create both boards along with specifications on the board membership.

After lengthy debate, the seven citizen commission members unanimously agreed to give council the option to create them as it sees fit through this added clause:

“To promote the fair and equal administration of justice and to protect the county against potential litigation and liability, County Council may establish a County Jail Oversight Board and a Public Defender Advisory Board in accordance with state law.”

To ensure council seriously contemplates the matter, commission members said wording also will be added in a not-yet-completed transitional section setting a timeline for council to initiate a study of both.

Prison board

Before home rule took effect in 2012, decisions about prison staffing and operations were made by a prison board comprised of the three county commissioners, district attorney, county controller, sheriff and a judge or judicial representative.

Under the current structure, the county manager oversees prison operations and selects a correctional services division head who must be confirmed by county council.

Study commission member Stephen J. Urban expressed support for a prison board when County Manager Romilda Crocamo appeared before the commission in December.

Urban, a prior county councilman, maintained that a prison board could “offer some advice” and possibly help reduce prison litigation.

Crocamo told Urban that a prison board could appear to be a good thing in theory, but the facility had “become a political dumping ground” in the past.

Crocamo said two county branches — correctional services and Children, Youth and Families — have more liability exposure due to the nature of their work, but the county has worked to implement positive changes, such as a medication-assisted treatment program for inmates suffering from opioid withdrawal upon arrival.

Crocamo also retained Dauphin County-based Sweeney Corrections Consulting to examine prison operations and said this week a public report on its recommendations and findings will be released soon.

The study commission initially considered requiring a board to oversee the county prison system operation and maintenance and ensure the health and safekeeping of inmates. It would have included seven to nine members, including at least three citizens appointed by the county manager subject to council confirmation.

Public defender

The commission’s consideration of a public defender advisory board evolved from a suggestion by past county chief public defender Al Flora.

The public defender’s office must provide legal representation for qualifying indigent applicants.

In a written communication earlier this year, Flora told the commission “the current organizational structure compromises the independence of” the public defender’s office and threatens its “ability to provide competent and effective representation.”

Among other suggestions, Flora proposed creating a five-person “select committee” to hire and fire the chief public defender and oversee office operations. In this scenario, the county Court of Common Pleas president judge would appoint two members. Three other entities — the chief judge of the county’s minor judiciary, the county bar association executive committee and county council — also would each appoint a member.

Like the correctional services head, the current charter made the chief public defender one of eight division heads nominated by the county manager, with council majority confirmation required for a hiring to take effect.

While the commission did not advance a select committee concept, it added a requirement for the manager to obtain council confirmation to remove the chief public defender.

The commission’s initial proposal to create a public defender advisory board would have established a panel of seven to nine members to assist the county manager in ensuring the office “receives the independence and support necessary to fulfill its mission.” This panel would have included at least three citizens appointed by council.

Commission debate

When discussing both boards, study commission members raised questions about their powers and whether their creation was essential to improve operations.

Based on the unknowns, the commission agreed council should be empowered to perform this analysis and act accordingly.

Commission Chairman Ted Ritsick said Wednesday he expects the proposed charter will give council nine to 12 months — a time has not yet been approved — to initiate a study.

“We agree this is important to consider, but it’s something better viewed as a legislative function of council,” Ritsick said. “The commission only has a very limited amount of time and cannot give this matter the due diligence it needs.”

Commission Vice Chairman Vito Malacari concurred, saying the recommendation will “force council’s hand” to examine both boards and publicly report its determination.

“It allows them as a legislative body to do the work of the people,” he said.

Malacari also expressed hesitancy to “tie the hands of council” by locking in a new structure for the public defender’s office in the charter. He noted there is a movement pushing the state to address funding shortages and other issues encountered by public defender’s offices that may impact future decisions.

The commission will meet at 6 p.m. Thursday in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre, with instructions for the remote attendance option posted under council’s online meeting section (scroll down) at luzernecounty.org.