Luzerne County home rule study question may not advance

A proposal to reconsider Luzerne County’s home rule government structure was not collectively embraced by county council during its work session this week.

Another idea to eliminate one of three public comment periods prompted mixed responses.

The home rule reconsideration stems from a suggested ordinance asking November general election voters if they want to form a Government Study Commission.

Council Chairwoman Kendra Radle said it may be time to reevaluate the home rule charter because it has been in effect for a decade and questions have surfaced about discrepancies between charter wording and state law.

“While the charter is a great document, I think it has its flaws,” Radle said.

But Acting Chief Solicitor Shannon Crake Lapsansky made it clear council cannot seek to form a study commission focused only on improving the current charter.

Instead, the study commission must have the freedom under state law to independently decide if it wants to keep and modify the current home rule structure, draft an entirely new charter or revert back to the old structure, Crake Lapsansky said.

“In full disclosure, the Government Study Commission could decide to do whatever they want,” she said.

If council proceeds with placing the question on the November ballot, voters also would simultaneously elect citizens to serve on the study commission. These commission members would have up to 18 months to perform their work.

Any recommended commission change would have to be approved by future voters to take effect, which is what occurred before the county’s January 2012 switch to home rule. The current structure replaced a system in effect more than 150 years and put 11 elected council members and an appointed manager in charge of decisions previously made by three commissioners and several elected row officers.

Councilman Chris Perry said he would be “totally opposed” to the proposal to seek a study commission because council would have no way to set up parameters ensuring home rule would remain in place.

Councilman Stephen J. Urban said he was never a charter proponent but believes there are other ways to put specific improvements before voters. The charter has “good and bad parts,” he said, noting it was always meant to be a “living, breathing document.”

“You may not be sitting here in the future,” he told his colleagues, referring to a potential commission recommendation to get rid of home rule.

Councilman Robert Schnee repeated his past description of home rule as the “purest form of government” and said he would vehemently oppose a move that could result in a return to the commissioner system.

Schnee said the county made “great strides” reducing inherited debt and securing a credit rating under home rule, and he also believes charter flaws can be addressed through formation of a council committee.

“To go back — that can never happen,” Schnee said, referring to the commissioner system.

Councilwoman LeeAnn McDermott said she believes in correcting the charter but not going back to the old system.

Also in agreement with that position was Councilman Gregory Wolovich Jr.

He said council should identify problems and seek targeted corrective changes.

“We don’t have to reform the whole government,” he said.

Public comment

Citizens have three opportunities to comment — before voting meetings on agenda items only and after both voting meetings and work sessions on any county matter. Each allotment is three minutes per person, allowing each individual up to nine minutes total.

Council discussed a bylaw change removing one of its public comment periods, with a future vote required for the reduction to take effect.

Wolovich said the proposal goes against the charter’s mission to increase public involvement in county government.

“We’re here to represent them. Their voices should be heard,” Wolovich said.

However, only two other council colleagues — Urban and Kevin Lescavage — supported his motion to remove the matter from the work session agenda so it would not be discussed.

Crake Lapsansky said public comment must be accepted before council votes, but a third subsequent comment period is not legally required.

Council Vice Chairman John Lombardo said the suggestion was intended to streamline council meetings and eliminate redundancy, which is an issue he and other candidates raised on the campaign trail last year. Most governmental entities only accept comment before and after they vote, he said.

Lombardo stressed he also receives many emails from residents sharing their views on county matters and considers all public statements before he votes, noting he has changed some of his votes based on such feedback.

“This is not to stifle free speech,” he said.

Thornton said eliminating public comment after work sessions won’t shut out the public because council members cannot vote on these matters until a subsequent meeting in which comments must be accepted.

Urban said he would only support a public comment time reduction if council agreed to first hash out “bigger, meatier issues” at the council committee level, which would allow for more public input outside of regular council meetings.

Several citizens who regularly attend meetings urged council to keep all three public comment periods.