Luzerne County Ethics Commission member criticizes council majority decision

Luzerne County Ethics Commission Vice Chair Diane Dreier expressed disappointment last week that some county council members voted against the commission’s recommendation to censure and fine Councilman Stephen J. Urban.

“It is my opinion that in failing to hold one of their fellow members accountable, county council did not take its responsibilities seriously enough,” Dreier said during a commission meeting Friday, stressing she was speaking as an individual and not on behalf of the commission as a whole.

Dreier took issue with some council comments that she believes mischaracterized the commission’s efforts.

The commission held six meetings over the course of six months last year to review the matter and “took its responsibilities very seriously,” she said.

Its resulting report to council outlined a finding that Urban had violated the county’s home rule charter, she said. The commission was mandated to recommend the fine and censure penalties because they were stated in council’s own adopted ethics code, she said.

Urban case

The matter stemmed from Urban’s February 2021 acceptance of an election board chairmanship seat. Urban’s 10 council colleagues had unanimously voted the following month to remove him from the election board because the charter states elected county officials can’t be appointed to the election board. The two citizen board members who made him chair also were removed by council.

Urban had said further action was not warranted because his colleagues had already publicly acted by removing him from the seat. However, Denise Williams had urged council to act, saying she had filed the complaint before she was appointed election board chairwoman in April 2021 because she was “appalled” witnessing his placement to and acceptance of the seat.

With Councilman Tim McGinley absent and Urban unable to vote, five council members rejected the fine/censure recommendation on Feb. 8: Kevin Lescavage, John Lombardo, LeeAnn McDermott, Gregory Wolovich Jr. and Kendra Radle.

Only three supported the penalties: Brian Thornton, Chris Perry and Robert Schnee.

More commission input

The recommendation to take action against Urban had been approved by citizen commission members Dreier and Attorney Thomas J. Mosca, county DA Sam Sanguedolce and former controller Michelle Bednar. County Acting Manager Romilda Crocamo, the remaining commission member, had not participated in the decision because she was at the election board meeting in which Urban was appointed and had warned the board his appointment would violate the charter.

Now serving on the commission, county Controller Walter Griffith said he believes the council-adopted ethics code should only be linking the censure/fine to cases where council members are accused of interfering with day-to-day county government operations, which did not apply here.

However, commission members said they must abide by the code adopted by council, and it cites censure and a $100 fine for first offenses when a county council member is found to have violated “the charter” in general.

Sanguedolce said the commission followed the procedures laid out in council’s code.

“Essentially we spent a lot of time for no good reason,” Sanguedolce said.

Mosca said any actions the commission has taken during his term have complied with council’s code.

Griffith said council must revise the ethics code. He was on council’s code review committee before he became controller in January but said the committee did not yet get time to address the ethics code.

He stressed Urban “without a doubt” violated the charter.

“I did not disagree with the (commission) ruling at all. I think the commission did their job they were supposed to do, and they called out the problem which was identified. The ability to do a fine and censure was the concern for me,” Griffith said.

While council is free to rewrite its ethics code at any time, the commission agreed to prepare a list of concerns and recommendations to help council. Commission Solicitor James Bobeck also agreed to research ethics commission procedures at the state level and in Allegheny County.

Tribunal concern

Council last revised the ethics code in 2014 after complaints the commission had to both investigate and rule on complaints, according to prior reports.

Under this restructuring, outside attorneys handle both preliminary inquiries and full investigations if there is reason to believe the code may have been violated. The commission ultimately must either terminate a case or issue a formal complaint requiring a written response from the accused and possibly a commission hearing and ruling.

Griffith told his commission colleagues the current structure has become a “tribunal.”

Sanguedolce said a formal system is necessary because the code is requiring the commission to penalize county employees or, in this situation, a council member.

“We’re not permitted constitutionally to do that without giving them due process, so we have no choice but to become a court or be sued,” the DA said.

Mosca said council’s code contemplates that the commission is a tribunal, or court of limited jurisdiction, because it also includes a procedure for complaint subjects to appeal commission decisions to the county Court of Common Pleas.