Possible Luzerne County home rule charter referendums discussed

A Luzerne County Council committee recently discussed home rule charter changes that may be put before voters as individual ballot referendums in future elections, possibly starting with this year’s November general election.

Council Chairman Jimmy Sabatino had asked fellow Code Review Committee members to consider possible referendums for council consideration earlier this year. While voters rejected a proposed new charter in 2025, some changes in that package may be worth pursuing as ballot questions, he had said.

Councilman John Lombardo, committee vice chair, said during a recent committee meeting that the county “desperately” needs to change an eligibility condition for citizens interested in serving on boards and commissions.

County voters had approved a 2016 referendum allowing employees of companies with county contracts to serve on authorities at council’s discretion, following mandatory public disclosure and discussion. However, voters inexplicably rejected the same ballot question applying to board and commission appointments.

Those referendums stemmed from complaints that qualified citizens were turned away from serving.

Sabatino said he supports Lombardo’s recommendation, adding the disparity “definitely needs to be corrected.” That referendum would be feasible for November because the past wording of the ballot question could be used again, he said.

Council has limited time to pull together Nov. 3 general election referendums because they must be publicly approved and submitted to the county election bureau in August, officials said.

Councilwoman Denise Williams, who also serves on the committee, proposed another referendum eliminating wording that prohibits Election Day poll workers from serving on county boards due to their receipt of a county payment. Williams said many have expressed disagreement with this provision because they don’t consider poll workers employees.

“It eliminates a lot of people,” Williams said, referring to poll workers interested in serving on county boards.

Sabatino agreed and said the code committee may vote at its next meeting, not yet scheduled, to advance both recommendations to the full council for a determination on whether they will be placed on the November ballot.

Committee members discussed the possibility of putting three to five questions before voters in each election, saying too many would be confusing.

Williams said she prefers sticking to general elections for referendums. Pennsylvania has closed primaries, and those not registered as Democrats or Republicans may decline to cast a primary ballot solely for referendums, she said. Creating additional primary ballots for referendums also adds work for the election bureau, she said.

She also suggested multiple referendums based on recommendations from the Government Study Commission in the charter that failed to pass last year, including:

• Give council the option to create a county jail oversight board.

Before home rule, 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 structure in effect, the county manager oversees prison operations and selects a correctional services division head, with council confirmation required for that hiring.

The study commission determined council should be empowered to determine if the creation of a board would improve prison operations and, if so, approve its structure and powers.

Council recently created a Correctional Services Committee to discuss prison issues without interfering in daily operations.

• Have three council members on the Joint Airport Board with Lackawanna County that oversees the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, instead of two council members and the county manager or his/her designee. This was based on an argument that this board serves more of a legislative purpose.

Williams also suggested requiring minority council representation.

• Require council confirmation for the county manager to remove the chief solicitor and chief public defender.

• Permit council to appoint alternate members to fill in on the county’s three-citizen Board of Assessment Appeals as needed if permanent members are absent or have a conflict hearing any requests for real estate assessment reductions.

• Extend the cap for interim division heads to be in place from 90 days to 180 days to ensure the manager has sufficient time to choose applicants when the nine top division head positions are vacated.

• Restructure the five-member county Retirement Board that oversees the employee pension fund to place a citizen in a seat held by the county budget/finance division head. The county manager, two council members, and a member of the retirement system also serve on that board. The county manager would have the option to select a designee to serve in his/her place, which could be the budget/finance division head.