Most Luzerne County Council members — seven of 11 — have already decided they won’t be supporting the proposed new county home rule charter.
County Controller Walter Griffith also said he will be voting no on the charter referendum when it is placed before county voters for possible adoption in the Nov. 4 general election.
The seven council members not in support of the proposed charter are Harry Haas, Patty Krushnowski, Kevin Lescavage, Chris Perry, Jimmy Sabatino, Brittany Stephenson and Greg Wolovich.
The four remaining council members — Joanna Bryn Smith, Chairman John Lombardo, LeeAnn McDermott and Vice Chairman Brian Thornton — said they have not yet reached a final decision.
Stephenson said she believes the proposed charter’s reduction of council from 11 to nine members is not in the county’s best interest. She is confident current and future council members are committed to continued improvements within the existing structure.
“If we work, the charter works,” Stephenson said. “I think we can give it the opportunity to flourish with a proactive 11-member council.”
Haas said the proposed charter does not definitively remedy disagreements over the powers of the election board, election bureau and administration, which he believes was the main problem driving the move to convene a government study commission to reexamine the existing charter and propose changes.
Legal analysis from study commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, had 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.
As a result, a commission majority concluded council must have flexibility to change from an all-volunteer, five-citizen 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 current charter.
But after 23 months, the structure could be changed to allow employees and/or council members to serve on the board if a council majority-plus-one determines such an alteration is warranted.
Sabatino said he is a “strong no” on the proposed charter.
“If it isn’t broke, don’t fix it,” Sabatino said. “If you want better results from the current charter, elect better people. You want people who want to put good energy into being on county council so they get good results back.”
Krushnowski said she felt from the start it was too soon to assess the current charter, which was implemented in January 2012 and replaced a commissioner government structure in effect more than 150 years. More time is needed to determine if changes are warranted in the current charter, she said.
She also believes the reduction of council is a bad decision.
Lescavage said he is a “hard no” on the charter, primarily because it does not “solve” the problem of election responsibilities to ensure compliance with state law.
“I think the charter works pretty well the way it is — other than the election board. I think if that would have been clarified, we would be much better off,” Lescavage said.
Perry and Wolovich both reiterated they did not support the original referendum to convene a study commission because they had concerns about tinkering with a structure they believe has proven to be effective.
Perry said he disagrees with the proposed reduction to nine members, saying it puts decisions and work in fewer hands and decreases opportunities for citizens to serve.
Wolovich said he believes this county should follow the example of some other home rule counties that seek changes through individual referendums that are easier for voters to digest. He also advocates an election board composition change spelled out in advance for voters to decide instead of providing county council with the power to make alterations.
Perry emphasized his criticism is no reflection on the volunteer, seven-citizen study commission.
“I give them credit for everything they did and all the time they put into this. They did a lot of work,” Perry said.
Study Commission Chairman Ted Ritsick said he is prepared to speak at length about the reasoning behind proposed changes and their benefits to those interested.
“The new charter provides much needed reforms that will keep the county out of costly legal challenges,” Ritsick said. “The most effective thing to do is to vote charter yes.”
Undecided
Bryn Smith said she agrees with some recommendations in the charter, but there are others she does not support.
Because the only option is a choice for or against the entire package, voters won’t have the ability to pick and choose, Bryn Smith said, praising the commission for its exhaustive work.
Lombardo said he had expected “more delineated responsibilities between the election board and election bureau.”
“I’m not really sure what I plan on doing as far as the charter is concerned just yet because I feel the proposal did not address some key issues that needed to be pinned down,” Lombardo said.
McDermott and Thornton said they are still reviewing the proposed changes and did not reach a decision.
Controller
Among other issues, Griffith said he is particularly concerned about an added clause regarding the controller’s access to data.
The proposed addition: “Nothing in this Charter shall be construed to limit the authority of County Council to enact protocols and procedures to protect the integrity of confidential data, including but not limited to records contained in the Office of Law and the Office of Public Defender.”
Griffith’s response: “The above provision provides the power for the County Council to limit access to information to the County Controller. This provision will provide the power of the County Council to limit the oversight and ability to review and be an independent watchdog and is a ‘fatal flaw’ in the proposed charter.”
Ritsick said the clause was added at the recommendation of the study commission solicitor to prevent the release of protected information, such as medical data governed by HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
Griffith also said the recommendation giving council power to change the election board composition prompted him to describe the proposal as a “bait and switch” charter, saying voters may be unaware the stated initial composition may change.
Regarding controller duties, the proposed charter attempted to help the controller by requiring audited entities to provide a written report within 60 days detailing their plans and progress implementing controller’s office recommendations.
The proposed charter and a final report detailing changes have been posted on the commission’s section of the county website, which is marked with a special box on the main page, at luzernecounty.org.
As required, paper copies of the charter and report will be available for review at the council clerk’s office on the first floor of the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. The documents will also be provided to the Osterhout Free Library in Wilkes-Barre, the Pittston Memorial Library and the Hazleton Area Public Library.