Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce’s plan to grant pay increases to three newly promoted administrative employees has sparked an email exchange with council over budgeting and protocol.
The question is whether he can proceed without council approval.
Sanguedolce said he has funds to cover the increase without exceeding the overall allotment council budgeted for wages, union and non-union.
But if he needs to transfer funds from another category within his budget to ensure there’s enough in that particular non-union wage line — even if they are both related to wages — he must come to council for approval, said Council members Walter Griffith and Linda McClosky Houck.
Under the county’s home rule charter, the DA, controller and courts can transfer unencumbered funds within their budgets “provided the transfers are not used to increase salaries or create new positions.”
It’s still unclear if a transfer will be needed. Sanguedolce provided an initial response to council explaining the reason for the promotions but said Thursday he may have an additional reply based on further review of the charter, state law and the amount available in the relevant budget line for non-union wages.
Council budgeted $1.7 million for non-union wages in the DA’s office this year.
2014 situation
A similar debate surfaced in the summer of 2014, when the county judiciary proceeded with raises for non-union court branch employees.
The judiciary had budgeted funds available for raises overall but initially needed a budget transfer to cover them in the court reporters department. Council majority approval was unlikely.
Court officials said state law gave them sole authority over how their budgeted funds were spent, as long as they didn’t exceed the overall allocation from council for all court branches.
However, that argument was not tested because enough funds were freed up in the court reporter department to avoid a transfer when a court reporter employee was reassigned to another department. The county administration allowed the raises in the payroll system because no budget transfers were required.
DA raise details
County Administrative Services Division Head David Parsnik informed council of the DA’s plans on Wednesday because the county administrative code says council must receive written notice five days before changes in the number, classification or compensation of positions are implemented.
Sanguedolce has submitted employee change-of-status documents to provide three salary increases due to recent promotions, Parsnik said: deputy district attorney, from $66,267.50 to $73,000; deputy district attorney of narcotics, $66,267 to $69,000; and narcotics division chief, $60,000 to $65,000.
The first increase is for Chester F. Dudick Jr., who was promoted from deputy district attorney to chief deputy district attorney, Sanguedolce said.
The second impacts Daniel E. Zola, who advanced from deputy district attorney of narcotics to deputy district attorney in charge of investigations. While continuing to lead the county drug task force, he will also oversee interstate and inter-county cases, cold cases and special investigations.
In the final position, Thomas J. Hogans previously oversaw major crimes as an assistant district attorney and is now deputy district attorney in charge of litigation, managing trials and various divisions within the litigation section, such as the vice/narcotics and special victim units.
Parsnik told council the action will increase the DA’s budgeted allocation for non-union wages.
“The district attorney needs to explain to county council where the additional funding is coming from to increase the salaries,” Griffith wrote in response, calling for discussion at Tuesday’s council meeting.
DA’s reply
In reply, Sanguedolce said funds are available in part because multiple positions are unfilled due to difficulties finding suitable candidates. The department also filled some senior positions with new hires at lower salaries and is receiving some salary reimbursements from outside sources, he told council.
Sanguedolce, who took over as district attorney March 25 because Stefanie Salavantis is running for judge, said Dudick, Zola and Hogans were with him working daily throughout the coronavirus pandemic because “crime and investigation and prosecutorial efforts did not stop.”
Now that courts are returning to full operation, a “tidal wave” of in-person hearings and trials are being scheduled, he said. The DA’s office was understaffed prior to the pandemic, and the three workers “agreed to take on additional duties to lighten the workload on the remainder of the office,” he said.
The district attorney has “sole oversight” of the budget provided by council, he said, adding that he will continue Salavantis’ work to keep spending below budget and is “committed to overall fiscal responsibility of this office.”
McClosky Houck followed up with her own reply Thursday, saying she echoes Griffith’s opinion.
“The district attorney has the right to manage the office as he sees fit, but he also has the responsibility to follow the home rule charter and its budgetary restrictions regarding salary increases in that office,” she wrote. “He does not have ‘sole’ unfettered ability to reallocate funds for salary purposes.”
She also maintained budget season is the “appropriate time” for salary adjustments. Funds budgeted for union positions were deemed necessary to operate the office and are not “up for grabs” to increase salaries for existing positions because they are vacant, she said.
County Chief Solicitor Romilda Crocamo said she has received the emails and will provide a legal opinion to council before its Tuesday meeting.