Jun. 18—WYOMING — The Luzerne County study commission held its first public hearing at County Operations Building in Wyoming on Tuesday evening. A number of topics in the new county home rule charter proposal were mentioned, including the makeup of county council, term limits, and the requirements to run for or hold certain positions.
Following a brief slideshow presentation by the seven-member commission, the floor was opened for those listening, both in-person and remotely, to express their suggestions and concerns in a public forum.
Some highlights of the public comment portion of the hearing:
Reduction of council
Throughout the public hearing, those who came to the podium brought up their concerns with the commission’s plan to reduce the number of Luzerne County council members from 11 to seven members at the start of 2030.
Plains Township resident Gerald Cross said that there is little proof to say that the current, 11-member council is particularly inefficient. In fact, Cross made the case that council is more deliberate in its decision making when a high threshold for a majority is necessary.
“A smaller council reduces the examination of policies from different perspectives and interests,” Cross said. Passing legislation becomes an accomplished fact, much more easily done, without the need to listen to different opinions.”
County Controller Walter Griffith, who is typically in favor of reducing council’s size, echoed Cross’ comments. He pointed to the specific numbers that would be needed to form a majority on the council.
“The charter needs to be stronger in its wording if you’re going to reduce the number of council members…,” Griffith said. “You only need four [members] now to get a majority, but before you needed six,”
Like other at the public hearing, Griffith was concerned with the amount of power that council would carry, particularly as it related to its control of the county election board.
“The danger to that is, depending on what four [in the majority] you have, the charter seems to be way too flexible for council to have too much control,” Griffith said.
Term limits
District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce, whose eligibility to run in future elections has been at the forefront of the county term limit debate, spoke up at the public hearing, including on that subject.
“Public opinion in Luzerne County seems to disfavor term limits,” Sanguedolce said.
Sanguedolce cited the cases of a number of people at the County Operations Building — including study commission members Tim McGinley and Stephen Urban, as well as Griffith — on Tuesday night to make his point. McGinley, Urban and Griffith each ran for multiple positions over time and were reelected by their constituents for years.
“I think that the public values experience, and the majority of our public is saying that they want people to be eligible over and over, and they want to select who serves the people of Luzerne County, rather than a minority of people telling them that the people they prefer are ineligible,” Sanguedolce said.
Cross pointed out a wrinkle in the new charter proposal, which would allow for incumbent elected officials to have a new slate of eligibility when the term limit rules are put into effect. Cross was not in favor of that condition.
“Exempting the current office holders looks, to me, to be a way to help those office holders enjoy… their incumbency,” Cross said.
Positional requirements
On the charter’s stated requirements for a district attorney candidate to be practicing in a court of law for five years, Sanguedolce pointed out the difficulties that could arise.
“I don’t know if the commission realizes this, but that essentially eliminates every sitting magistrate that might be a lawyer. That eliminates every sitting judge. … That eliminates all of the law clerks,” including some with decades of prosecutorial experience, according to Sanguedolce.
He said that the net to be cast for candidates should be expanded, rather than the opposite scenario.
“I think we should be widening the field of people that are eligible to run, rather than narrowing it,” Sanguedolce asserted.
Attorney Al Flora spoke to the chief public defender position, and said that the position must remain independent of political pressure or backlash. That means that the position’s connection to council should be reduced, according to Flora.
“As such, the chief public defender is not, and can never be, a team player as part of the county administration,” Flora said.
Flora suggested a list of five items, considering the position, to the commission to consider. He said the public defender should be appointed for a term in office, consistent with the district attorney; receive a salary consistent with the district attorney and county judiciary; have practiced law for at least 10 years; and be a full-time employee with no outside law practice. Flora’s fifth item was to establish a public defender advisory board.