Home // Opinion // Opinion Columnists // Kevin Blaum

Commission’s responsibilities a balancing act Kevin Blaum In the Arena

Sunday February 07, 2010 | 12:00 AM

HAVE YOU noticed the Luzerne County Government Study Commission (GSC) continuing to advance the ball? Theirs is more a deliberate ground game than the spectacular air show the Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints are anticipated to put on today.

The commission already has cast three significant votes in its attempt to piece together a new workable system of county government. Ideally its finished product will be unveiled in six months.

Its most important decision was to propose scrapping the current county commissioner setup, which has three commissioners and too many row offices. The row offices are administrative, non-policymaking positions whose duties are best performed by appointed rather than elected public officials.

Our three county commissioners (read two majority commissioners) sit as a legislative entity to determine county policy. They also preside over the executive branch which enforces their legislative “mandates.” It is a terribly antiquated system and a unanimous study commission was right to terminate it.

In two subsequent votes the GSC appears ready to recommend a new legislative branch made up of a county council and a “separate” executive branch led by an appointed county manager.

By a vote of 7-4 the commission opted for an appointed rather than elected county executive. Under its evolving plan the county council, not the voters, would choose the person to run our government. This move has stirred controversy and ignited some opposition where none previously existed.

While our current county government has zero checks and balances, many people worry that an executive, handpicked by a county council, would have too little autonomy and independence in carrying out its important responsibilities. How “separate” would these government branches truly be?

Balancing the power of an elected council with an appointed county manager might be the study commission’s most critical challenge. It should be addressed.

The third and most recent vote of the GSC was a 9-2 tally in favor of a council whose members are elected countywide. There will be no council members elected by districts and no carving the county into so many smaller and parochial fiefdoms.

Avoiding the election by districts pitfall is a significant accomplishment for the GSC, which seems quite willing to experiment but determined to craft a meaningful document. While dangerous traps still await them, getting past the argument over council districts is a major step forward.

But how many council seats should they create? The Times Leader reported on Thursday the GSC seems divided; “two commissioners feel seven is the right number, five say 11, two say nine and one says 13.”

I side with those favoring a nine-member county council and, in the interest of checks and balances, here is how I would elect them:

My council would have nine members all elected in 2011. The top three vote getters would be elected for six years, the next three would have a four-year term and the bottom three, two years. In two years, three seats would be up for election and they would be filled much the same way we elect our three commissioners today. Each party would nominate two candidates and the top three would be elected for a new six-year term. Two years later, three more seats would be filled in the same manner, and so on, thereby adding more checks and balances. The end result is a nine-member council having no more than six from one political party.

But what do I know? I thought it’d be the Vikings and Jets.