I apologize in advance for a lengthy post, which is probably not of interest to most of you.
The Facts
The big issue is the power and independence of his office. But the more specific issue is his desire to get more money into the pockets of four Assistant DAs. Of these four, he also wanted to promote two to supervisory roles. But here's the problem. Only one of these supervisory roles is open as a result of a vacancy. Stoffa told Morganelli he needed Council's approval for that second position.
After thinking things over, Morganelli decided that he would just go for one promotion, and give the remaining three raises. Interestingly, County Council Solicitor Phil Lauer agrees with Morganelli. According to his Complaint, Lauer stipulates to the authority of the district attorney to implement these personnel changes without County Council action. But the County's Human Resources office has apparently refused to go along with this resolution. So Morganelli, who feels that the independence of his office is under attack, has re-filed his mandamus.
The Home Rule Charter
Who is right? John Stoffa or John Morganelli? To answer that question we first need to look at some specific provisions in the Home Rule Charter, which is Northampton County's constitution:
Section 2.202 (11): "The County Council shall have, among others, the following powers: ... to establish in accordance with this Charter the salaries and wages of all elected officials, officers, and employes; and to set the numbers of officers and employes of each agency."
Section 2.201: "The County Council shall be the governing body of the County which shall exercise ... any residual powers of a county ... subject to the provisions of this Charter."
Section 5-503: "The District Attorney shall have the power to direct and supervise the Office of the District Attorney and its personnel, subject to the provisions of this Charter. The District Attorney, in person or through subordinates, shall have the power to appoint and remove members of the exempt service under his direction and supervision and to appoint, promote, transfer, demote, suspend, dismiss, or otherwise discipline members of the career service under his direction and supervision in accordance with the provisions of Article VIII."
Section 8-801: " The purpose of this article is to establish and maintain for the County a career service designed to attract, select, and retain, on the basis of a fair and open competitive selection process, the best qualified individuals, and to impose on elected officials, officers, and employes the highest possible ethical standards."
Section 8-804: "(a) Impartial Standards. The County Executive, or the agency responsible for the administration of the merit personnel system, with the advice of the Personnel Commission, shall establish impartial standards for each position in the career service, which shall be used to evaluate the qualifications of candidates for the career service. The evaluation of the qualifications of candidates for the career service shall be based on measures of competence and fitness such as written and oral tests, training and experience, physical and psychological examinations, and demonstrations of physical dexterity and physical ability to perform specific tasks."
Home Rule Charter Analysis: DA Is Right, But He Loses
The Assistant DAs whom Morganelli seeks to promote are either "exempt" or "career service" employees. That is unclear from his re-filed Complaint.
If they are exempt, they serve at his pleasure. Section 5-503 of the Home Rule Charter gives him the sole authority to "appoint and remove members of the exempt service under his direction and supervision." But it gives him no authority to set their salaries. According to Section 2-202 (11), that's Council's job.
Citing 5-503, Morganelli argues he the authority to "appoint, promote, transfer, demote, suspend, dismiss, or otherwise discipline" his staff. But that provision applies to members of the career service.
Even if these professional prosecutors were regarded as career service, Section 5-503 makes clear that any of Morganelli's promotions must be done in accordance with Article VIII of the Home Rule Charter. That includes a series of tests and other hurdles to ensure that "the best qualified individuals" are selected, instead of cronies. The DA has not alleged compliance with Article VIII.
Thus, under the Home Rule Charter, County Council sets the salaries and wages of assistant DAs, as well as the number of employees a DA can hire. He may get to do the hiring and firing, but Council sets the pay. Since Council controls the purse strings and adopts the budget, this makes sense.
But in this case, Council Solicitor Phil Lauer has already stipulated to Morganelli's personnel changes. That should end the matter. As Morganelli points out himself, Stoffa really has no dog in this hunt. This is strictly between Morganelli and Council. And it appears that the DA has an adequate remedy, which is merely presenting a resolution to Council for what will certainly be a perfunctory approval. I honestly don't even see a case or controversy. At least not yet.
Is Home Rule Charter Invalid?
But what about the bigger question? Is the Home Rule Charter invalid? It would seem so. Morganelli has cited caselaw that makes very clear that he, and he alone, has complete authority to hire, fire, suspend, transfer, promote, demote and otherwise manage personnel in his office. This cannot be impaired in any manner, not by collective bargaining agreements or even the Home Rule Charter.
Public Policy
I've been referring to arcane sections of the Home Rule Charter. But they serve important public policies. Obviously, a District Attorney must be able to run his office as sees fit. He cannot be a pawn of the Executive, Council or anyone else. But there are other public interests as well.
Independence v. Professionalism. - Article VIII of the Home Rule Charter is intended to foster an atmosphere of professionalism in county government. Those of us who have witnessed elected row offices are well aware of the potential for mischief when cronyism and nepotism are tolerated.
Caselaw indicates that the need for an independent District Attorney outweighs a union contract in which seniority rules. That's not so hard to swallow. But does this need outweigh career service regulations promoting professionalism? According to Morganelli, yes. And he may be right.
Independence v. Transparency. - If the DA decide to promote without notice or give raises without notice, doesn't this defeat the public's right to know?
Independence v. Sound Budgeting. - The caselaw also makes clear, and Morganelli concedes, that the people have a right to set his budget.
Any ambiguity concerning this would have to be resolved in Council's favor since they exercise any "residual powers."
Aside from the need for an independent DA, there is a public interest in open and transparent government; in ensuring professionalism; and in managing the county's finances.
All of this cries out for a review of the Home Rule Charter by Lamont McClure's Legal and Judicial Committee, which has not met in over three years. An amendment to the Charter is obviously overdue. While a DA should not be hamstrung, there is a public interest in professionalism, transparency and fiscal restraint.
Morganelli's latest complaint is below.
9 comments:
Stoffa is a walking, talking cow paddy! Could he do us all a favor and just resign before he screws somehting else up.
I don't agree with many of the District Attorney's policies but John is clearly right here. The district attorney's office should be and is required to be independent.
The people have a right to set the budget but once set, Morganelli has the authority to spend it however he sees fit.
This whole thing is actually pretty absurd in my opinion.
That is a John Stoffa specilty, dealing in absurdity. Look at the Gracedale mess and the overpriced unneeded building in an industrial park. Stoffa has elevated the absurd to an art form.
It is not an Overpriced nor is it an Under needed building. That boat has sailed. stop living in yesterday and make the best of today Mr Gregory
With all due respexct to our extremely effective DA the problem I see in our county is that the judicial branch and the DA think they are their own Administration.
For all of his errors, Stoffa is right, hew is fighting the judges and now the DA on everything that is adminstrative.
The budget is recommended by the Executrive and approved by the Council. They are the two elected bodies that decide the finances of the county that is ultimately passed on to our residents.
this is a great question to pose to thew exec candidates. Does the
DA really feel that they should be able togive raises that aren't in the budget? Do we really need tro pay for all of these judges or should they be required to work more than 20 hours a WEEK.
County Council, on the recommendation of the Exec decides on financial matters of the county -- oitherwise a DA could give all of theior staff 10% raISWES EVERY YEAR. They are the check and balance.
This seems academic. Can't the DA simply set the salaries of the individuals in his office and then establish a management chart the deliniates who makes what decisions? By the sound of it, the solicitor agrees that the DA can give raises regardless of job title and nobody appears to disput that the DA can assign responsibilities as he sees fit.
If this is about job titles, then it is kind of silly. The DA doesn't need to file a law suit to give the raises and assign case load and he doesn't need a court to rule he can do this. I can respect that he wants to have clarity in his authority/powers, but it won't change in any way his ability to manage the day-to-day affairs of the office with the exception that he can only call a certain number of people a certain title.
Good arguments, but seemingly unnecessary to run a DA's office effectively.
This is turning into a Circus
Good for Morganelli. The County Executive has nothing to do with the DA's office.
I believe Stoffa is right, and even if he weren't...I don't understand why having to go to Council for approval is seen by Morganelli as such a travesty and an insult, especially in an environment as beaurocratic as the County Govt. What is the big deal? Other than that he is trying to get publicity for a future career move.
Post a Comment