Luzerne County Ethics Commission recommends $100 fine for councilman

Luzerne County’s Ethics Commission has recommended censure and a $100 fine against county Councilman Stephen J. Urban for his February 2021 decision to accept a chairmanship seat on the county election board, according to an emailed decision recently sent to council members.

Urban’s 10 council colleagues had unanimously voted in March to remove him from the election board because the county’s home rule charter states no election board member shall be or have been an elected county official at the time of appointment or for four years prior.

Contacted Wednesday, Urban said he had no advance knowledge an ethics complaint had been filed against him or that he could have offered a defense because he was not notified at his residence or through a phone call.

According to the commission’s email to council, the complaint was served upon Urban by first-class mail at the county courthouse address in Wilkes-Barre on May 28.

Urban said he rarely checks his mail box at the courthouse and that county meetings were still being held virtually until last July. When he sporadically checked the courthouse box in recent months, he said most of it was junk mail that he discarded and that he never saw a commission letter.

He said council should revamp the ethics code and require sheriff deputy service or, at minimum, certified mail notification at the residence of any complaint subjects.

The commission also mailed a notice on Aug. 30 informing Urban he was in default for failing to answer the complaint and had until Sept. 14 to file an answer required for him to participate in an October commission hearing, it said.

Urban said council already had responded days after his appointment by removing him and the two citizen election board members who had appointed him.

“What are they trying to do — shame me for a second time?” Urban said.

Council would have to act to carry out the censure and fine recommended by the commission.

Censure is a public statement that a code violation occurred and “expressing strong disapproval” of an action, the code says.

This is new territory for council because it has not received a recommendation to impose punishment since the ethics commission was created under the home rule government implemented a decade ago, officials said.

The commission’s decision said the evidence and witness testimony “are clear” that Urban “knowingly, willfully and intentionally violated the charter and ethics code per his actions.”

Likewise, the county ethics code is “very clear that violations of the charter constitute punishable offenses,” it said, pointing to the code’s list of penalties to be applied when a council member is found to have violated the charter, which would be censure and a $100 fine for the first offense.

The county controller, manager, district attorney and two council-appointed citizens serve on the commission. However, County Acting Manager Romilda Crocamo did not take part in commission deliberations or vote on the decision Dec. 30 because she had to serve as a witness due to legal counsel objections she had made to the election board when Urban was appointed board chair.

One person familiar with the ethics complaint disputed that Urban was unaware, with the source saying they were informed Urban had made inquiries about the status of the commission’s investigation.

Urban emphatically denies any prior knowledge of the ethics complaint.

Walter Griffith, who will be part of the commission now that he took office as county controller Monday, said he will push for a council ethics code revision that includes sheriff deputy service or certified mail. He said the commission’s legal counsel also should be required to send email alerts to council members on their county email addresses if they do not respond to communications.

The subjects of complaints are not publicly known in advance because the code prohibits commission members from discussing details at its meetings. While all complaints and hearings are kept confidential, the code says final written decisions of the commission spelling out findings, recommendations and any sanctions “may be made available to the public.”

Once the commission issues a final written decision, the respondent has the right to appeal the decision to the county Court of Common Pleas within 30 days.

Urban said he will leave the decision up to council because he does not want to spend personal funds on a court appeal.

Regarding Urban’s election board appointment, the county’s law office had said state law absolutely allows home rule counties to prevent council members from serving on their election boards.

Urban said Wednesday he still questions that opinion but did not want to spend $5,000 to retain a lawyer to pursue a legal challenge.

“I owned what I did last year, and council took decisive action,” Urban said. “The intent was to use my knowledge of elections to get the county back on track and not to hurt the county in any way.”