Understanding Luzerne County’s proposed new charter

Nov. 4 general election voters will decide if Luzerne County’s home rule charter is revised, and it’s an all-or-nothing package selection.

If a yes vote prevails, the proposed new charter version will be activated.

A majority of no votes means the existing charter that took effect in January 2012 will continue as is.

This understanding is essential because some confusion has been expressed online that could make voters incorrectly believe a yes vote would repeal or eliminate home rule entirely. There is no option on the table to revert to the three-commissioner/multiple-row officer structure that was in place for more than 150 years before home rule.

An elected, seven-citizen Government Study Commission drafted the proposed new charter.

For help in the decision now before voters, here are some of the major changes that would come with a yes vote for the new charter:

• County Council

Council, the part-time governing legislative body, would be reduced from 11 to nine members at the start of 2028.

To achieve that reduction, voters would select four council members instead of six in 2027.

Supporters argue a cut of two members will make the nine more accountable and efficient. Critics say the reduction will lead to less scrutiny of county matters and diminish voter representation.

In addition to adopting an annual budget, council’s duties include approving larger contracts, appointing members to outside county boards, enacting codes and ordinances, confirming nominations to eight division head positions, and hiring/firing and evaluating the manager.

Based on council’s responsibilities and workload, the proposed charter would increase the annual council compensation from $8,000 to $10,000, which is lower than the rate of inflation since the charter’s implementation.

• County manager

The minimum annual salary for the county manager would increase from 55% of the district attorney’s compensation to 75%.

State law already dictates the DA compensation — $1,000 below the salary paid to a county Court of Common Pleas judge.

The state compensation for a county judge is set at $227,411 in 2025, which puts the DA’s salary at $226,411.

That means the manager would have to receive at least $169,808 if the new charter were in effect.

This change would not impact county Manager Romilda Crocamo. Her annual compensation is listed at $175,000 both last year and in 2025. An employment agreement a council majority approved in August provides a compensation of $181,501 in 2026, which is $1 more than the compensation that had been paid to prior county manager Randy Robertson.

Some of the manager’s powers were altered in the proposed charter.

For example, the commission added a requirement for the manager to obtain council confirmation to remove the chief solicitor and chief public defender, believing a higher level of council involvement is warranted for those positions.

In another change, the manager would have to seek council approval to transfer budgeted funds within departments if those funds are used to create a new position or increase the salary for any position above the annual amount budgeted for that year.

• Election Board

At least initially, the proposed charter would keep the board at five members, require at least two Democrats and two Republicans and allow those four council-appointed members to then choose someone to serve in the fifth seat — all provisions in the current charter.

But after 23 months, the structure could be changed to allow employees and/or council members to serve on the board if a council majority-plus-one determines such an alteration is warranted.

Critics have argued the permanent board structure should have been determined up front and stated in the proposed charter now before voters.

A commission majority concluded council must have flexibility to change from an all-volunteer citizen board if the board’s powers must increase to comply with state election law, which could include authority to hire the election director, choose the voting system and prepare annual election budgets.

Legal analysis from study commission solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, had said the Pennsylvania Election Code, or Title 25, is clear that election boards have employee appointment authority and other responsibilities currently performed by the county’s administration.

Concerns have been raised about providing complete control over elections to five unelected people — potentially to a majority of three members from the same political party.

• Ethics commission

Under the current charter, the county DA, controller, manager or his/her designee and two council-appointed citizens (one Democrat and one Republican) serve on the commission that enforces the council-adopted ethics code.

The proposed charter would keep the current commission structure and add two more citizens for at least the first two years.

A majority-plus-one council vote would be required if council wants to change the composition after this two-year trial period.

The proposed charter also would create an advisory committee, including citizens, to make nonbinding recommendations on ethics code changes to council.

• Term limits

The three-term limit in the current charter would be kept, but elected or appointed terms of two years or less would not be counted toward the limit in the new proposal. This applies to council, the DA and controller.

It also provides a clean slate to the DA and controller by not counting terms prior to the new charter’s effective date toward the three-term limit.

The greatest impact of both changes would be on county District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce.

Instead of 12 years — three full, four-year terms — Sanguedolce is limited to less than seven years in the current charter because it counts two prior partial terms, one appointed and the other elected, toward the total. Sanguedolce was elected to his first full, four-year term in November 2023.

With the added clean slate provision, Sanguedolce’s current four-year term won’t count toward the limit. He would be eligible to serve three more four-year terms.

• Controller

The proposal does not recommend a mandatory increase of the controller’s compensation.

Council sets the controller’s compensation and can alter it at least a year prior to a new term. There has been no change since council voted in November 2012 to increase the annual salary from $36,562 to $64,999.

Regarding controller duties, audited entities would be required to provide a written report within 60 days detailing their plans and progress implementing controller’s office recommendations.

Language also was added noting council has authority to enact protocols and procedures to protect the integrity of confidential data, including but not limited to records contained in the county law and public defender’s offices.

This clause was added at the recommendation of the commission solicitor to prevent the release of information that must remain protected to prevent litigation against the county, such as medical data governed by HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. County Controller Walter Griffith has asserted this provision allows council to limit the controller’s “ability to review and be an independent watchdog.”

• Public defender

Council would be required to create a public defender’s office advisory board — the second such body among state counties.

The requirement evolved from a suggestion by past county chief public defender Al Flora and was intended to provide outside input on the county’s mandate to provide legal representation for qualifying indigent applicants.

• Prison

Council will have the option to create a county jail oversight board.

Before home rule, decisions about prison staffing and operations were made by a prison board comprised of the three county commissioners, DA, county controller, sheriff and a judge or judicial representative.

Under the current structure, the county manager oversees prison operations and selects a correctional services division head, requiring council confirmation.

The study commission determined council should be empowered to determine if the creation of a board would improve prison operations and, if so, approve its structure and powers.

• Other boards

For the three-citizen assessment appeals board, which rules on real estate assessment reductions, wording was added to ensure members complete training mandated by state law enacted after the current charter took effect. Council would also be permitted to appoint alternate members to fill in as needed if permanent members are absent or have a conflict, hearing any appeals.

The composition of the five-member county retirement board also would be changed. This board, which oversees the employee pension fund, consists of the county manager, budget/finance division head, council chair, a council member and member of the retirement system. The new proposal would replace the budget/finance division head with a citizen and allow the manager the option to select a designee to serve in his/her place.

On the Joint Airport Board with Lackawanna County that oversees the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, three council members would serve instead of two council members and the county manager or his/her designee. This was based on an argument that this board serves more of a legislative purpose.

Also, citizens who work for a county contractor — even if they have no direct involvement in the work or decisions — would now be eligible to serve on county boards and commissions if the nature of interests and relationship is provided in writing and reported in public.

More information

The proposed charter and a final report detailing changes have been posted on the commission’s section of the county website at luzernecounty.org.

Paper copies of the charter and report are available for review at the council clerk’s office on the first floor of the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. The documents also may be viewed at the Osterhout Free Library in Wilkes-Barre, the Pittston Memorial Library and the Hazleton Area Public Library.

Four of the seven study commission members had voted in support of the revised charter: Chairman Ted Ritsick, Vice Chairman Vito Malacari, Secretary Matt Mitchell and Stephen J. Urban.

Commission Treasurer Cindy Malkemes and member Mark Shaffer voted against the proposed charter.

Tim McGinley, the remaining commission member, chose not to take a position and abstained.