About Me

My photo
Nazareth, Pa., United States

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Courts Want Say in Selection of Row Officers

She's one of the genuinely nicest people who's ever worked for Northampton County. Dot Cole retired recently from her position as Register of Wills and Clerk of Orphans Court. The question of her successor, however, has raised questions about the powers of the Executive and Judicial branches of government. Executive John Stoffa has appointed a replacement. But as I understand it, the courts are reluctant to swear her in. Let me fill you in.

Unlike most counties, Northampton County appoints its row officers, from Sheriff to Recorder of Deeds. Jerry Seyfried, who has served as Executive, member of Council and Director of Court Services, explains why.

"Today, Northampton County promotes and compels competitive testing for all these positions. Career Service Regulations, updated periodically,assure that we get the best individuals to head these departments. All the positions under the Department head are also filled by testing. Highest test results usually result in getting the promotion. Most of our Department Heads have years of on hand experience. Under the Row Office Election system, it was a popularity contest and the newly elected official gave out the jobs in those respective offices to political hacks. That doesn't happen anymore in Northampton County. There is also a grievance procedure in place for any individual who feels they were passed over for a promotion. There is an independent Board of arbitrators who will hear the case and they have the authority to override the decision of the appointing authority. There are also safeguards as to posting of all test scores to eliminate someone with a low test score being interviewed before someone with a very high test score. Northampton County is the leader in this field. I don't want to bore you with lots of details, but I do want your readers to know that Northampton County has a great staff of employees. Most of this is because we no longer elect row offices."

Most of the time, when a new row officer is appointed, there's little or no fanfare. But the question of Dot's successor has the courts concerned. Although the Administrative Code places this office under the control of the County Executive, judges feel they should have some control over those row offices.

A little over a year ago, judges convened an emergency hearing about delays, primarily in the criminal division. Convicted defendants who belonged in state prison were sitting in the County jail. Appellate courts were firing memos at judges about delays in getting records. A logjam of paperwork prevented judges from even arraigning criminal defendants, and getting that all-important plea.

This delay was the result of a criminal division staff embroiled in office squabbles since the arrest of a Deputy for embezzlement. Because they're all members of public sector unions, there's little that Stoffa or his Director of Court Services could do, except impose overtime. Had these workers been judicial employees, they could have been fired, union or not.

Some Council members, like Ron Angle, pushed to have the entire Department of Court Services placed under the control of the courts, where it really does belong. There was some question whether a Home Rule Charter amendment should be considered, but the push for better accountability ended with Angle's term.

Courts work closely with the Criminal Division, Civil Division and Register of Wills. But if they select the Register of Wills, there's another problem because they are often called upon to review Register decisions.

On the other hand, count administrators have no clue what goes on in that row office. The test prepared for that office came from people who might have a combined five years of County service.

Ideally, this is a matter that should have long ago been considered by Council's Legal and Judicial Committee. But Lamont McClure, its Chairman, has convened no meetings this year. Or last year. Or the year before.

Now, with Dot Cole's appointed successor waiting in the wings, the question has risen again and is very much on the front burner. Courts feel that they, and not the Executive, should make these appointments. They, not the Executive, receive the nastygrams from appellate courts when records are delayed. They, unlike the Executive, also have the hammer to deal with petty office in-fighting.

As you might have guessed, this new appointment is rather controversial for another reason. Someone outside of the office has been selected. This has raised a lot of eyebrows. But my focus here is not to review the merits of an appointment already made, but to discuss whether the courts should at least have a say in the appointment of someone who works closely with them. They get that with the Sheriff's appointment. I'd argue they should have total control over the criminal division, civil division and register of wills.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Bernie,

The Courts should have NO SAY in any appointment!

Anonymous said...

In the appellate and federal court systems, the courts administer those recording offices as well. It is time to change Northampton County's judicial recording offices. The Director of Court Services should become a Deputy Court Administrator, to oversee such offices with the accountability left to the Courts for personnel matters.

Anonymous said...

From 7:13 AM

In addition the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC) defines all regulations and procedures for such offices and how to handle the records. Since the AOPC already dictates how to handle records, the Courts should also administer those recording divisions within Court Services.

Anonymous said...

From 7:13 AM

Lastly, the Northampton County Courts have already demonstrated that they can administer recording offices efficiently by the examples of Domestic Relations Office and Juvenile Probation.

Anonymous said...

Question: Is the power to appoint within the charter and was that provision approved by the voters or county council?

Bernie O'Hare said...

Answer: The power to appoint is in the Admin Code, not the Charter. So this can change w/o a Charter Change. But it really calls out for a Charter amendment so the voters can weigh in.

Anonymous said...

I guess there would be nothing wrong with a shared responsibility to avoid a problem of patronage. The court nominates, council approves and the court administers. Takes away any idea of absolute power.

Anonymous said...

The Home Rule Charter, under
"Article XII Transitional Provisions" provides for the temporary establishment of these offices under the control of the County Executive. The Charter also provides for the appointment of the heads of the "row offices" to be appointed by the Executive in accordance with the mandates of the "Administrative Code." A Charter chanfe is not necessary. Should this issue become a legal issue for consideration on the ballot, the appeal to have the matter placed on the ballot would lose. It would be deemed that the Legislative Body is not exercising their legal obligations and the issue is clearly not a ballot issue according to the Home Rule Charter. The Legislative Body should have the backbone to make this decision and not attempt to pass it on to the voters because it will surely fail. I agree it would make it much nicer for the voters to decise this issue but legally it is not a ballot issue.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Your point is well-made. This is why there should have been hearings.

Anonymous said...

Point of Clarification.....It is Article XIII not Article XII and I didn't mean the issue would fail if it were on the ballot, but it would fail the legal test as to "Is it a legal ballot issue"

Bernie O'Hare said...

I would argue for a referendum bc the HRC provides that cabinet level positions like the Director of Court Services be appointed by the Exec, subject to confirmation by council. It would seem to be cleaner to delineate those cabinet positions. I might be wrong. The Admin Code would have to change, too. Then again, this is why there should be hearings. Also, the effective date would be after D' Isidore's term as Director so it is not perceived as a shot at him.

Bernie O'Hare said...

10:06, I understand your point, and it makes sense.

Anonymous said...

I thing it is a great idea. Give everything to the Courts then we don't need a County Executive to run the County. Maybe we can also get rid of a few County councilmen or women. What other departments are left?????

Anonymous said...

The panel that decided on this person to take over, should be accountable if anything happens in that office especially after there was a qualified person that has been there 13 + years doing the job already!
Politics!!!

Anonymous said...

I think the Courts and the Judges have lost site of WHO PAYS their bills. Get them off of their thrones, and maybe if they worked more than 4 hours a day, we would not have a log jam of cases and people running back and forth to easton to have their case heard over and over again.

Anonymous said...

Who did he appoint? Proabaly another Stoffa croony. He and his goofy panels, he tried this with the elections chief.

He wants to give someone a job and the courts want qualifications. I agree with the courts.

Anonymous said...

Yeah. I'd like to know who he appointed. Was it someone who worked for years in that department or an outsider?

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately Mr. Stoffa isn't the brightest Executive we ever had. He is probably the most honest. Why does he do these stupid things?

Anonymous said...

..At least the legislative and executive branches are elected every four years and are much more accountable to the voters than the courts will ever be. Bad idea to turn this over t the courts.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I'm not going to get into who was appointed and who was not. I prefer to discuss the larger issue.

Anonymous said...

Doesnt matter who he appointed..It's his right to do so.The courts have enough power and they arent accountable to anyone

Anonymous said...

Impose a hiring freeze. Dont fill vacant positions for and extended period of time and then blame the understaffed overworked and underpaid clerical staff for the natural and obvious consequence of Council's unwillingness to permit proper staffing of an office. That's it. Blame the lowest group in the food chain for the lack of responsible action. Yes, let the court take control. Then it can exercise its power to hire,fire and demote without any affording due process to the lowly worker bees.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Nice try. Those who work for the county are well aware that the criminal division was out of control. In addition to causing problems for their director, they fought incessantly with each other. Under these circumstances, they were bound to fall behind. I personally think it was deliberate. By placing these people under the control of the courts, they become at-will employees, and they brought it on themselves. The fault lies not with Council, or the Exec, but with them.

Anonymous said...

I am a little confused Bernie. On many occasions you have criticized the Norco "black robes" for their arrogance and abuse of power. And now you think that the row offices would be better under their control? Isn't it better that there is a separation of power under court services? That is probably what the home rule charter commission had in mind in assigning that department to the county executive.

Bernie O'Hare said...

I am highly critical of judges when they act outside the scope of their authority, i.e., when they think they are engineers or architects. But when it comes to their own work, I have a high opinion of Northampton County's bench. For offices that work directly under them, I believe they should have some say in who runs those offices and some control over the people who work there.

This is a matter crying out for hearings, and it has been crying out for hearings for some time now. There are some concerns. Will the cours use it to install their favorites or people owed political favors? Are there possible conflicts of interest?

But in the criminal division, we are sitting on over $100 Mm in uncollected fines and costs If the courts had control, they would have the hammer to collect that money. They also would have the hammer over staffers who want to play games.

I do think this needs some serious consideration.

I have no desire to see Archie D'Isadore replaced. Whatever change s made could be effective at the end of John Stoffa's term. So do not construe this as a cheap shot at him, who I consider a gentleman.

Nor is this a shot at the newly appointed register. The judges have no legal basis for denying her the position. But i think the judges are correct to want the larger question to get an examination.

Anonymous said...

You can bet the reason Bernie is screaming Stoffa's pick is becasue it is another Stoffa crony.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Out odf respect for the privacy of these applicants in what is a personnel matter, I am mentioning no names. And if you read my post, you'd see I sided with the judges n this one. But don't let the facts get in your way. Might make your little head hurt.

Anonymous said...

While I'm sure the judges would like to have some say in who they work with, don't think that just because someone has been there for 13 years would do a better job.

Do you want your government to work smarter or just reward people who've haunted the halls forever and know all the players?

Doesnt work that way in the private sector either. The hiring manager could and should take into account who this person will be working with to make sure they can do the tasks they are assigned. That said, if I had to get sign offs from other department heads that work with my unit on every hire, it would create such a drag on things that nothing would ever get done.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Hi, I don't really want to get into the relative merits of the appointment made, but want to stick to the bigger question. The employee selected and the one not selected have done nothing wrong and are both hard workers. I will try to respect their privacy.