Luzerne County Council rejects proposed cut of new IT staffers

After extensive discussion Tuesday, a Luzerne County Council majority decided not to reduce the administration’s requested 2022 information technology department budget.

Council chose to wait until next week to vote on budget amendments involving the election bureau and a $1 million allocation to repair roads. That vote will occur Dec. 14, when council is set to adopt the no-tax-hike budget.

IT positions

Councilman Walter Griffith proposed denying funding for two of three new positions in IT, saying he believes workload issues cited by outgoing IT Director Mauro DiMauro can be addressed through better delegation of duties.

DiMauro had announced his resignation, effective Dec. 16, during his budget presentation to council a week ago after arguing his department is significantly short-staffed and warrants the creation of seven more positions instead of the three included in Acting County Manager Romilda Crocamo’s proposed budget.

Councilwoman Linda McClosky Houck said she won’t support Griffith’s proposed cut. While agreeing a “firm hand” and staffing alignments are warranted in IT, she said she believes the department is understaffed for the magnitude of work it must complete.

Council Vice Chairman Chris Perry concurred, saying he does not want to tie the hands of the new director hired for this “critical position.” Resumes are due Dec. 17.

Crocamo said she must “plead” to keep all three positions in the budget, asserting denial of the new positions would be “draconian.”

“I am asking you to not handcuff the new director,” Crocamo said.

She promised increased public reporting on all IT activity and streamlining. The County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania also has started an assessment of the IT department at Crocamo’s request, she said.

Councilman Stephen J. Urban argued the county should wait until a new director assesses staffing.

Councilman Harry Haas agreed with Urban’s point and unsuccessfully proposed a compromise to cut funding for one of the three new positions in an attempt to “meet management halfway.”

Haas, Griffith and Urban were the lone council members to support Griffith’s proposed cut.

A majority also rejected Griffith’s proposed amendments cutting IT allocations for contractual services and repairs.

Election

Crocamo’s proposed, no-tax-hike 2022 budget seeks $1.48 million to cover election bureau expenses, or an increase of $647,344.

The increases include funding to add two new positions — a non-union election operations staffer and a union administrative assistant. That would boost the staff from six to eight employees.

She had agreed to furnish additional information on added expenses after Haas and Griffith questioned the amounts but said Tuesday that further review of the latest bills is necessary to provide an accurate and complete comparison.

Council voted to postpone a decision on Griffith’s proposal to cut $10,000 from a salary line that would impact creation of the election operations staffer and reduce an “other contractual services” request by $308,242.

Haas and Urban complained about ongoing difficulties obtaining information on election bureau spending.

“Please put the time in and give us real numbers,” Haas said.

“It’s a damn shame that we have to go through this all the time,” Urban said.

Roads

Council Chairman Tim McGinley received unanimous support for $24,130 in cuts to travel, advertising and conferences, but a majority voted to postpone a decision on his proposal to take $1 million from the reserve to fund road repairs.

The proposed budget had $250,000 in reserve, but the earmark is now up to $1.26 million. McGinley wants to transfer $1 million of that for roads.

Haas said next year’s reserve grew by $924,047 because a majority supported his proposal last week to use federal American Rescue Plan funding to cover the county’s public transportation allocations.

Haas said that money should remain in reserve in case council needs it in 2022 and argued the county will be receiving funding for roads from a federal infrastructure package.

McGinley said citizens have been complaining about the condition of county-owned roads.

Perry said both the $1 million allocation and additional federal infrastructure funding are needed due to the demand for costly road repairs. The reconstruction of approximately one mile of roadway costs $400,000, he said, citing a figure that had been presented to council.

“We need help. This is not going to go far,” Perry said.

A council majority agreed to hold off until the operational services division informs council which road or roads will be fixed with the $1 million.

Councilman Robert Schnee said council can’t keep “kicking the bucket” in addressing road repairs.

Urban said the county should only repair roadways if the municipalities agree to assume ownership after the work is completed. McGinley and Crocamo concurred.