Final proposed Luzerne County home rule charter adjustments underway

Final adjustments are underway for the proposed Luzerne County home rule charter revision that will be put before voters for possible adoption in November, including another vote next week on the recommended size of county council.

Four of seven Government Study Commission members drafting the proposed new charter had voted in May to stick with the original reduction from 11 to seven council members — Ted Ritsick, Matt Mitchell, Mark Shaffer and Stephen J. Urban.

The three remaining commission members — Cindy Malkemes, Vito Malacari and Tim McGinley — supported Malacari’s recommended reduction to nine.

Malacari told his commission colleagues last week he will again propose reducing council to nine instead of seven members at the next commission meeting Tuesday, citing concerns raised by several citizens about the cut to seven during a June 17 public hearing about the draft charter.

Plains Township resident Gerald Cross, who was extensively involved in the current charter design as a consultant, reiterated his concerns during last week’s commission meeting, saying a council reduction would give fewer people greater authority and power to make decisions impacting the entire county. With a cut to seven, those seeking council approval would have to convince a majority of four people instead of the current six.

Shaffer has maintained most county voters want a smaller council and that he believes the county can “manage with seven just fine.”

Tuesday’s commission meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. Instructions to attend remotely will be posted under council’s online meetings section (scroll down) at luzernecounty.org.

Term limit reset

Originally, the revised charter provided a clean slate to incumbent council members, the district attorney, and the controller by not counting terms prior to the new charter’s effective date toward the three-term limit.

All six commission members in attendance last week voted to eliminate the reset for council, but a majority rejected Shaffer’s proposal to also remove the clean slate for the DA and controller. Commission member Tim McGinley was absent from that meeting.

Ritsick said he wants to keep the reset for the controller and DA because they are “institutional knowledge positions.”

Malkemes and Shaffer, the only ones supporting the controller and DA reset elimination, argued that the provision will prompt some to reject the proposed charter.

“I’m just warning you guys that’s going to be a big vote no,” Shaffer predicted as Malkemes described the decision as a “mistake.”

Ethics

The initial recommendation is still in effect that would require council to decide within 23 months of the new charter’s passage how the ethics commission and code should be structured.

For at least the first two years, the commission must keep the same five members and add two more citizens.

The commission is composed of the county district attorney, manager, controller and two council-appointed citizens (one Democrat and one Republican). Two more citizens from the same two parties would be added on a trial basis to assess how it works with citizens outnumbering the elected officials and manager.

Council would still be free to alter the structure after two years.

However, the commission may vote Tuesday on Ritsick’s proposal to require a majority-plus-one council vote, as opposed to a simple majority, if council wants to deviate from the new seven-member commission structure containing four citizens.

Last week, the commission voted to create an advisory committee including citizens that will make nonbinding recommendations on ethics code changes to council.

This commission will include three council members and two or four citizens.

Following initial passage of a code and commission, council must vote at least every two years to ratify or amend the code by ordinance.

For these subsequent biennial reviews, the commission decided last week that council must consult the sitting ethics commission to obtain its input.

Public defender

All six commission members in attendance last week voted to mandate council creation of a public defender advisory board in the proposed charter.

Previously, the commission recommendation was to make the board creation optional for council.

Malacari said he believes the mandate is warranted based on public hearing feedback from past county chief public defender Al Flora.

The public defender’s office must provide legal representation for qualifying indigent applicants. Flora has argued the office must be more independent from council and the administration.

Election board

Still standing is a commission majority recommendation giving council authority to determine if the five-person county election board should remain composed of five citizen volunteers.

Supporters of the proposal reason that council must have flexibility to change from an all-volunteer board if the board’s powers must increase to comply with state election law, which could include authority to hire the election director, choose the voting system and prepare annual election budgets.

The proposed charter would keep the board at five members, require at least two Democrats and two Republicans and allow the four council-appointed members to then choose someone to serve in the fifth seat — all provisions in the charter.

However, it would permit council to eliminate prohibitions barring county employees and elected officials from serving in these board seats.

To make such a change in composition, council would have to amend its administrative code. Majority-plus-one council approval would be mandated for code changes related to the election board.

This plan was prompted by legal analysis from commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, that said the Pennsylvania Election Code, or Title 25, is clear that election boards have employee appointment authority and other responsibilities currently performed by this county’s administration.

Concerns were raised about granting such control over elections to five unelected people, which could equate to a board majority of three citizens from one political party.

Shaffer pushed last week to remove the option for council members to serve on the election board, but there was no vote at that time.

Controller audits

The commission is slated to vote Tuesday on Malacari’s recommendation to require follow-up on controller’s office findings.

Currently, the audited entity must provide a response to the controller within 14 days after its receipt of the draft audit, and the controller must include that response in the final audit report.

The proposed addition would require the audited entity to provide a written report within 60 days of its initial response “detailing the entity’s plans and progress for implementing any recommendations to which it had agreed,” Tuesday’s agenda said.

Manager search

To date, no changes have been proposed in response to public hearing concerns raised by past manager search committee member Gerard T. O’Donnell.

When the top manager position becomes vacant, the current charter requires council appointment of at least three citizens on a search committee that handles the recruitment and initial screening and interviews before recommending the applicants it believes are the most qualified to council for its consideration.

The proposed charter would cap the search committee at seven members and permit the appointment of two county council members from different political parties to the committee. It also mandates an application process for the citizen members — a step council already has taken in prior searches.

O’Donnell, who served on the 2016 search committee, said he opposes the addition of council members on the search committee.

“Maintaining the integrity of the search committee helps ensure that the committee’s work and decisions are not politically influenced or motivated,” O’Donnell told the commission in a written comment. “Further, excluding council members from participating as members of the search committee removes the appearance of potential conflicts of interest or inappropriate coercion.”

Council has the final vote and power to accept or reject the search committee’s recommendations, he added.

“I strongly believe this constitutes sufficient involvement by the sitting council members, so therefore, council members should not be involved as members of the search committee itself,” he wrote.

Second hearing

Although only one public hearing is required, the commission agreed to hold a second one on July 9 in Hazle Township, particularly to accommodate southern county residents.

The hearing will be at 6 p.m. in the Hazle Township Commons Building, 103 W. 27th St. in the township.