Luzerne County Council majority ends litigation over ballot referendum

A Luzerne County Council majority voted Tuesday to withdraw litigation council filed against the county election board in August attempting to place a referendum on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Council also introduced an ordinance Tuesday that would rescind the referendum, with a public hearing and majority vote required at a subsequent meeting to complete the cancellation.

The referendum would have revamped the home rule charter section covering the election board and include changes in the way a fifth seat was structured and filled and the eligibility requirements for all board members. It also would have vacated the currently seated board.

Election board members unanimously voted Sept. 7 against providing the required certification, citing concerns about the legality of the proposed changes.

Several council members have said they don’t want to continue investing time and money pursuing the legal case trying to get the referendum on the primary ballot in 2024. Instead, a council push is now underway to ask next year’s primary election voters if they want to convene an elected Government Study Commission to examine the current structure and possibly recommend changes to voters in a future election. Council may vote on that in October.

How they voted

Four council members voted against both ending the litigation and initiating a rescinding of the election reconstitution referendum Tuesday: Brian Thornton, Carl Bienias III, Tim McGinley and Gregory S. Wolovich Jr., who drafted the referendum.

Six council members supported both actions: Vice Chairman John Lombardo, LeeAnn McDermott, Matthew Mitchell, Chris Perry, Chairwoman Kendra Vough and Stephen J. Urban.

Councilman Kevin Lescavage was absent Tuesday.

Wolovich said council did everything in its power to approve the referendum “in the right time and right manner,” and he criticized the election board for not framing a ballot question or questions to carrying out council’s directive.

“We were ignored,” Wolovich said.

Thornton said he wholeheartedly agrees with Wolovich’s assessment, describing the board’s decision to “trump” council’s will as a “sad state of affairs.”

“Going forward, I think we need to address that with a Government Study Commission,” Thornton said.

Lombardo concurred with Thornton and said the litigation cost the county money. He said he will be happy to support a ballot question about forming a study commission because council members weren’t able to put proposed charter improvements before voters on their own, even though they are intimately familiar with the charter’s weaknesses.

Urban said he did not support the election reconstitution referendum because he thought it was a structural change that cannot be made without formation of a study commission. Urban also said he predicted getting the referendum on the ballot was “going to be a mess” and result in a court case.

Urban also defended the election board, saying it has its own independent statutory obligations and powers in decision-making.

McGinley said he believes the county would prevail if the matter continued in court. He maintained the election board had a responsibility to frame the referendum question.

“They chose not to do that, and that’s upsetting,” McGinley said.

Opioid commission

Council unanimously voted to create a Commission on Opioid Misuse and Addiction Abatement that will make recommendations to council on the spending of money received from the state’s litigation settlement against opioid manufacturers and wholesale distributors.

The county is due to receive approximately $25 million over 18 years.

The approved ordinance said the following would serve: the county district attorney, drug/alcohol director, human services division head, correctional services division head, county manager, one council member and a county citizen.

Prison health care

During Tuesday’s work session, county Correctional Services Division Head James Wilbur presented a recommendation to retain WellPath LLC as the county’s prison inmate medical services provider.

WellPath was the only company that submitted a proposal to perform the work after the company’s current contract expires the end of this year.

Vendor responses were due Aug. 25.

Wilbur told council six potential vendors had participated in a pre-bid conference, and four attended a subsequent tour of the county prison on Water Street and nearby minimum offenders building on Reichard Street, both in Wilkes-Barre. There were also follow-up questions from some prospective vendors, but WellPath was the lone entity to submit a proposal, he said.

WellPath’s proposal is $4.5 million for 2024, $4.7 million for 2025 and $4.9 million for 2026, records show.

Larry Doll, of WellPath, told council the new contract includes costs for a medication-assisted treatment program for those with substance use disorder that was implemented by the county earlier this year.

The medication-assisted treatment program cost $376,876 this year and is estimated at $450,000 in 2024. The administration is proposing council cover that portion of the expense through the opioid settlement funding.

Thornton noted county prisons are now required by the state to provide such programs, and the administration verified it is no longer optional.

Perry asked Wilbur if he is happy with WellPath’s performance.

Wilbur said he is. The company addressed past issues and now has strong staffing for both medical and mental health services and a “great working relationship” with prison staff, Wilbur said.

Inmates increasingly enter the prison with substance use disorder and mental health issues, and the agreement with WellPath is necessary to keep inmates and staff safe and limit litigation and liability issues, Wilbur said.