Second thoughts were raised Monday about last week’s Luzerne County Study Commission proposal to give an election board of five citizen volunteers full power to hire an election director and solicitor, choose the county’s voting system and obtain an election budget from county council.
The commission is drafting a revised charter that will come before voters for possible adoption in November.
Last week’s proposal, which was not formally adopted, evolved after commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, said the Pennsylvania Election Code, or Title 25, is clear that election boards have employee appointment authority and other responsibilities.
A study commission majority had expressed support for keeping five citizens, resulting in the proposal to assign the board with powers held by the county administration.
Instead of voting on that proposal Monday, Commission Chairman Ted Ritsick suggested a different approach. He wants to avoid spelling out election board powers and leave it up to county council to determine how the county will comply with Title 25 through council’s administrative code.
A majority-plus-one council vote would be required to make administrative code changes involving the election board, creating a more stringent threshold, Ritsick said. That would be five votes under the commission’s plan to decrease council from 11 to seven members.
Ritsick said he was proposing a new direction because he “reached some of the same conclusions” as two public comment speakers Monday about potential problems with the proposal drafted last week.
Plains Township resident Gerald Cross, who had served as a consultant for the commission that drafted the charter in effect since 2012, said last week’s proposal would grant “complete control of elections” to five unelected people — potentially to a majority of three members from the same political party.
Cross asked how the commission proposes to prevent three unelected people from “using the machinery of government” for their own potentially political purposes.
“What I do see you doing is opening up the potential to harm voters’ rights under Title 25 so that you can build a bureaucratic structure that answers to no one except the dominant political party,” Cross said.
West Pittston resident Jim Rose, who oversees the election bureau as county administrative services division head, said he agrees with Cross and strongly advised the commission to speak with county Election Director Emily Cook about any concerns before settling on a recommendation.
Rose said he does not believe last week’s recommendation is “workable” and argued it does not provide “the cohesion we need” to run elections.
He advocated for the addition of elected officials on the board, saying they must be “accountable to voters” and have “skin in the game.” Rose also proposed a member of the administration serve on the board.
“I think they’d be better able to guide the direction of elections,” Rose said.
Commission Treasurer Cindy Malkemes and member Mark Shaffer opposed authorizing council to determine any changes to ensure compliance with Title 25.
Malkemes and Shaffer said they fear council would use the authority to gain control of appointing the fifth election board member.
Under the charter in effect, council appoints four citizens — two Democrats and two Republicans — and those four then select a fifth member of any or no affiliation.
Shaffer predicted Ritsick’s proposal would prompt a campaign against the charter. Ritsick said last week’s proposal also could result in a similar effort because there is a call for election accountability in addition to independence.
“I think we need to find that compromising middle ground,” Ritsick said.
Commission members Stephen J. Urban, Matt Mitchell and Vice Chairman Vito Malacari voiced support for Ritsick’s plan.
Commission member Tim McGinley said he will await the final proposed wording.