Study commission votes again on size of Luzerne County Council

Plains Township resident Gerald Cross made one last push against shrinking Luzerne County Council in a proposed new charter that will come before voters for possible adoption in November, but a study commission majority still chose to stick with the original reduction from 11 to seven members.

Cross understands the rationale behind the current charter in effect since 2012 because he was executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League when it served as a consultant to the commission of citizens that drafted it. A nonpartisan/nonprofit public policy organization, the league is serving as a consultant for the current commission, although Cross is retired and has been regularly speaking as a taxpaying resident.

Drafters of the current charter chose a larger council so more people would be involved in decisions. Those seeking approval from council must convince a majority of at least six.

Cross said last week the current council size provides greater representation and dilutes the “concentration of political power” and influence of each member.

As the commission nears completion of its work, it must issue a final report explaining the reasons for proposed changes, Cross said. He questioned how the commission will justify its recommendation to increase the power of individual council members, reduce elected representation and change a council size that he believes has contributed to the charter’s acknowledged success.

Five commission members had voted on the council reduction to seven last November: Ted Ritsick, Cindy Malkemes, Matt Mitchell, Mark Shaffer and Stephen J. Urban.

The two remaining commission members — Vito Malacari and Tim McGinley — voted against that reduction, with Malacari supporting nine council members and McGinley for keeping 11.

Majority support weakened last week but still dominated when the commission voted on Malacari’s motion to reduce council to nine members instead of seven.

Malkemes changed her prior position and supported Malacari’s motion last week along with Malacari and McGinley. After listening to multiple presentations on the matter from Cross, Malkemes said his points “made a lot of sense.”

The four others voted to keep the reduction to seven members — Ritsick, Mitchell, Shaffer and Urban.

Malacari cited the concerns raised by Cross about less representation and a greater concentration of political power. The proposed charter attempts to increase council’s workload and involvement, which would be more challenging if four seats are cut, he said. He also expressed a fear that such a sizeable reduction will weaken council’s check-and-balance legislative role and result in council relying increasingly on the executive branch.

Shaffer said he still supports seven and believes council members “could be more efficient with their time.”

“I think the one mandate that we had as body was to reduce the number of members of council,” Shaffer argued. “I think going from 11 to nine is just not a significant enough change for people to vote for this charter. I think if we want people to vote for this charter, we have to have something that we can like nail down that we did this, that this is what you’re voting for.”

To bolster his position, Shaffer said he learned Los Angeles County has a five-member Board of Supervisors.

“I think that we can manage with seven just fine,” Shaffer said.

Urban, a prior councilman seeking re-election, said he believes a smaller council can handle the workload and remain part-time, noting in his opinion that council agendas have been “very light” this year.

“I think seven is a good number. I think it’s a workable number. I think it would allow people to work in a more harmonious way, more together,” Urban said.

Council also can hire more workers to help the council clerk, if needed, to provide additional support, Urban said.

McGinley said nine would be better than seven, but he respects the expertise of Cross and fears any reduction would have negative effects, with fewer people involved in researching and vetting decisions.

After last week’s vote, McGinley said he was struggling to understand the opposing vote after hearing the points made by Cross.

“It doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sorry. I respect everyone’s vote. But I really think that this is a key element,” McGinley told his fellow commission members.