Dems Attempt to Install Congressional Staffer on NorCo Elections Comm'n

Northampton County Council members have been quick to stroke their own egos with a meaningless home rule charter change in which they now insist on being called Commissioners. But despite the obvious need, they've thus far resisted a call for thorough review of the county's 44 year-old constitution. Its shortcomings were on full display at last night's County Council meeting. Let me give you the details. 

Whether they're for President or constable, elections are run by each individual county here in Pa. Now some of you might argue that something this important should be a federal or state operation, but this is the way it is. An economic development office is nice, but elections are a core county function. 

Who within the county administers these elections? Every Executive I've encountered has insisted he does. But this really presents an optics problem when the Executive himself or members of his party are seeking re-election  That was very apparent in the last election cycle, when the Executive unilaterally decided there not only be four drop boxes for mail-in ballots, but even went so far as to declare the hours of operation.  

Now under the county's home rule charter, the elections commission "shall administer the system of elections and the registration of voters under applicable law."  Some of you interpret this to mean that this unelected board does it all, from purchasing voting systems to hiring employees. This argument ignores other provisions in the home rule charter that give County Council, and not even the Executive, the final say when it comes to buying things. It also ignores the career service provisions of the charter that were specifically designed to prevent the petty little fiefdoms that existed prior to home rule. 

I'd argue that purchases are governed by the charter provisions giving County Council the power of the purse. Personnel decisions are guided by the career service clauses, which vests power over staffers with the county administration. But questions concerning the election itself are intended to be resolved by the Elections Commission. 

Unfortunately, the way the Elections Commission is composed is going to create problems. State law requires that at least one person on these county boards come from the minority party. But the county home rule charter actually leaves it to the party chairs to provide the names to be nominated by the Exec. 

Here's what it says: "The Election Commission shall be comprised of five (5) members. No more than three (3) members shall be registered voters of the same political party. The County Executive shall notify the two (2) political parties receiving the greatest number of votes at the most recent general election in the County of all vacancies on the Election Commission and shall request them to submit a list of five (5) nominees for appointment to the Election Commission. None of these nominees shall be a candidate for public office, hold public office or be an officer in a political party. Members shall be appointed from these lists. If a list of nominees is not submitted within thirty (30) days after the date of request, appointments to the Election Commission may be made from the entire list of registered voters of the political party which did not submit the nominations. Any three (3) members shall constitute a quorum and shall have the power to perform the functions assigned to the Election Commission. At no time shall any member of the Election Commission be a candidate for public office."

As I'm sure you can see, this provision is designed to ensure that the Commission is comprised of the most partisan members of each party. Interestingly, party chairs have no obligation to ensure that these registered voters actually reside in the county. There are prohibitions against members actually running themselves, but each party has its share of political operatives to carry the water for those who are running. 

That's precisely what happened with the nominations submitted by NorCo party boss Matt Munsey. He proposed Selina Winchester. as one of his three picks. She's no candidate. So far as I know, she holds no officer's rank within the Democratic party. She even lives here. Perfect, right?

Not exactly. Winchester is employed by LV Congress member Susan Wild. It's no secret, based on the dunning emails that Wild sends every day, that she intends to seek re-election. Now this is perfectly legal. But just as certainly, it creates the impression that the fix is in. Is it really smart to have, as an elections commissioner, someone who works for a candidate?

Council member John Cusick thinks it's a bad idea. He posed a "nightmare scenario" with disputed ballots in a close race. "I don't think it would be proper for someone who is an employee of someone who is on the ballot to potentially be adjudicating an outcome that could affect their boss. We've got 90,000 registered Democrats. I think we could find one who is not an employee of someone who is on the ballot ... ."  

Tara Zrinsi, who may be on the ballot herself next year, said that DeRenzis is "super-qualified" who would keep a distance from Wild the candidate. 

Council member Kerry Myers played the race card, as he is wont to do. He pointed out that Winchester is a person of color, as though that somehow makes her above scrutiny. "If you want to go down that road, be my guest. But be prepared to take the heat for it," he threatened. Then he began ranting about MLK. 

The objection to Winchester had nothing to do with her race and everything to do with her job.

And that was the point made y newcomer John Goffredo. he pointed out that he did not know the race of any of these appointments and that "is not pertinent." He said there are "plenty of people ourt there who do not share that conflict of interest."

Goffredo's comments were echoed bu John Brown, who said that this appointment presents an optics problem,and that Council's job should be to prevent these problems before they arise. 

Even Tom Giovanni, who never speaks at Council meetings, suggested this appointment was unethical. 

Lori Vargo Heffner, believe it or not, agreed with Republicans. "You need to do better," she said to party chairs. She indicated this put Winchester in a disparaging light. 

Cusick moved to table the nomination. It was tabled by a 6-3 vote. Kerry Myers, Kevin Lott and Ron Heckman voted against tabling the nomination.