Study commission nixes Luzerne County Council solicitor addition

Language authorizing Luzerne County Council to hire its own solicitor won’t be added to the proposed new home rule charter, the study commission decided this week.

The commission is preparing a revised charter that will come before voters for possible adoption in November.

County legal services are provided by a central law division in the structure that took effect in January 2012. This centralization meant attorneys would represent the county as a whole instead of “individual officers,” ending past situations of county departments battling and suing each other, charter drafters had said.

In its present review, the commission contemplated assertions that council should not be forced to rely on the county law office because the office falls under the supervision of the county manager, or executive branch. The manager must obtain council confirmation to hire the chief solicitor but not to discipline or terminate the top attorney.

The county administration has stressed the law office issues opinions solely based on its interpretation of the law and that attorneys must follow rules of professional conduct if they are faced with a conflict in any matter.

Attempting to address the matter, the commission voted last month to add a requirement for the county manager to also obtain majority council confirmation to remove the chief solicitor.

Separate from this added step, the commission considered language Monday under council’s powers and duties that would have explicitly permitted council’s hiring and oversight of a council solicitor.

During a prior discussion, some commission members had raised concerns about a council solicitor’s ability to initiate litigation against the county.

Proposed wording was added for Monday’s meeting indicating the council solicitor may provide legal advice but not initiate litigation.

However, commission Chairman Ted Ritsick made a motion to remove all added references to council’s ability to hire a solicitor.

Ritsick referred to past arguments against solicitors representing individual offices and reasoned the commission should “stay out of that” and “avoid a situation where we have multiple solicitors.”

Instead, Ritsick said the commission could encourage council in its final report to exercise its existing ability to expand council’s office of clerk if additional support is needed, which could include legal input.

The current charter said council has authority to appoint a council clerk “and such other staff as it deems desirable.”

Commission Vice Chairman Vito Malacari asked Ritsick if council would still be able to hire legal staff to help with ordinances, resolutions and other tasks.

Ritsick said additional staff members could perform legal work but not have a solicitor title.

“So essentially, it’s just keeping it the same,” said commission member Stephen J. Urban.

All six commission members in attendance approved Ritsick’s recommendation: Ritsick, Malacari, Urban, Secretary Matt Mitchell, Treasurer Cindy Malkemes and Mark Shaffer. Commission member Tim McGinley was absent Monday but has opposed the allowance of a council solicitor.