Home rule redux?

Consider it a case of d�j� vu.

A whirlwind of wheeling and dealings, sweetheart deals and questionable expenditures sets off a wave of discontent among Luzerne County residents. The circumstances strike a chord with one person who has had enough.

In 2001, Nancy Kemp, then-president of the Luzerne County Forum, started an effort to place a question – whether to form a commission to study the county’s government – on the November ballot. The commission was formed, but voters ultimately shot down in 2003 the Recommended Home Rule Charter for Luzerne County’s government.

More than four years after home rule’s defeat by a margin of 54 percent to 46 percent, David Capin is gathering support for another try. The self-proclaimed “non-politician” said his – and others’ – “total dissatisfaction” with the county’s (majority) leadership has forced him to resurrect the home rule issue. The 47-year-old Kingston resident has already garnered support from some voters and minority Commissioner Stephen A. Urban.

Home rule shifts local government responsibility from the state legislature to the local community with a charter similar to a local constitution.

One of the biggest problems with Luzerne County government is that the current three-commissioner format has no system of checks and balances, Capin said.

“If the American system, which was created many, many years ago, had the foresight to separate the executive and legislative branches, why don’t we do that at the county level?” Capin asked. “The only way to do that is with the charter … The solution is not business as usual.

“There are no checks and balances because the executive and legislative branches are the same.”

Blueprint in place

Months of research and dozens of meetings left many of the 2001-elected study commissioners drained after the 2003 home rule defeat. Capin said this time around, things could be different. The proposed charter would have, in his opinion, served county residents well. With that blueprint, a new study commission would not have to start from scratch.

Capin recommends “modest” changes to the 2003 charter. For example, instead of paying a full-time county executive an annual salary of $65,000, as proposed in 2003, Capin believes the figure should be “north of $100,000 – probably $125,000.” That’s the salary he believes would be needed to attract a person with the proper know-how to head a county with a $200 million budget. Any actual decisions would be debated and voted on by the commission.

Capin said he is not interested in the county executive job or a legislative branch (county council) position. He would, however, serve on the commission to draft a proposed charter.

“I personally have zero interest in becoming a (county) executive,” said Capin, who is a senior vice president of an international financial services firm. “I believe being an activist can be just as effective as being an elected individual.”

Though Capin has no major political aspirations, he is no stranger to politics. In 1993, he formed a volunteer task force to help dig Kingston out of a projected $3.4 million financial hole. Later that year, he was appointed to fill a vacancy on the Kingston Council. He served for about a year and opted not to run in a special election.

J. Carl Goodwin, chairman of the 2001 study commission and former Kingston Township supervisor, said he would advise a new commission but would not want to serve on it. Kemp also said she would offer advice, but questioned how involved she could be, citing health as an issue.

Betsy Summers, former treasurer of the 2001 study commission, said she is excited that new blood is interested in home rule. She would support Capin in the early stages but is uncertain if she would seek a study commission seat.

“I’m hoping the people of the county realize now we need a change,” Summers said. “It isn’t going to be from electing the same people over and over again. It doesn’t matter if the names change.”

Urban supports districts

Commissioner Urban, who backed the study of county government in 2001 but did not favor the proposed charter in 2003, supports home rule and Capin. He said his previous opposition stemmed from specific charter concerns, including an increase in staff and payroll and a legislative branch (county council) chosen at-large as opposed to by districts.

“When I saw the final plan, the creation of the larger payroll could have added about $1 million to the payroll of a county that was already in financial difficulties,” Urban said. “I would support home rule with all districts (similar to how Wilkes-Barre chooses its council members). I think it would sort of level the playing field. At-large members would always be Democrat because of the makeup of the county.”

Urban, who spoke before and attended some previous study commission meetings, said he would do the same if voters supported another commission.

County Commissioner Chairman Greg Skrepenak said he is not surprised Urban is supporting home rule. Commissioner-elect Maryanne Petrilla did not return a phone call seeking comment.

Skrepenak and former Commissioner Todd Vonderheid opposed the 2003 proposed home rule charter and signed the “Skrepenak/Vonderheid Contract with the PEOPLE,” promising a reform of county government, if elected. Neither attended study commission meetings and Skrepenak has admitted to only “skimming” the charter. Vonderheid has said he read the document several times.

Contacted last week, Skrepenak denied that a checks-and-balances system, Capin’s main complaint, does not exist in the county, stating that is Urban’s job as minority commissioner. He said home rule would split the county and place considerable power in the hands of a county executive.

“You’re giving a lot of authority to one individual,” Skrepenak continued. “Is one individual better than three?

“At the end of the day, this system has been in place for a long time. It’s a system that works. (Home rule) would further divide this county even more because the council people are from districts. It’s adding another layer we should be taking away. It’s adding layers to an already burdened system.”

Skrepenak also questioned if legally it was too soon to pose the home rule question in 2008. Capin’s goal is to have the referendum on the November ballot.

County Election Bureau Director Leonard Piazza said Friday he had “some concerns” about the timing, but declined to comment specifically on the legality of a 2008 referendum. He advised home rule proponents to consult legal counsel before progressing.

According to a home rule handbook put out by the state Governor’s Center for Local Government Services, a county must wait four years to form another government study commission or pose an alternate question as written by the state.