Last week's meeting of Northampton County Council's governance committee was a doozy. I've told you of Council member Lori Vargo Heffner's desire to micromanage what should be an independent pay study. I've detailed the misinformed derision that wannabe Council Solicitor Ron Hackman directed at Executive Lamont McClure's proposed gift ban ordinance. I've chronicled Council member John Cusick's desire to have vacancies among elected officials filled by election instead of lengthy appointments. But there's more. Council also considered, and not for the first time whether the Sheriff should be elected instead of appointed. They also pondered whether the Home Rule Charter needs an enema in the form of a government study commission, They got contradictory answers from Council Solicitor Chris Spadoni on whether they, or the voters, ultimately decide on government study recommendations.
Council member John Goffredo noted that only two counties appoint the Sheriff and is leaning towards the belief that the people should make this call, as they do nearly everywhere else. He asked if there's any reason why the voters should not be asked to approve a change from appointed to elected by referendum.
There is. This can only be done by establishing a home rule charter study commission. Council member John Cusick noted that some argue that changing the Sheriff from appointed to elected is a change in the form of government and would require a home rule study commission. Actually, there's no argument. In 2014, Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruled that changing the Sheriff from elected to appointed would be a change in the form of government and hence would require the election of a government study commission. It necessarily follows that changing the Sheriff from appointed to elected is also a change in the form of government that would require a government study commission.
At this point, wannabe County Council member Chris Spadoni suggested that it might be prudent to establish a government study commission. Cusick warned that this is a "potential can of worms. You could end up with three Commissioners and an elected Recorder of Deeds."
Council member Ron Heckman asked Spadoni, who actually is the Solicitor, what Council does with the report of the government study commission. "To be clear, the voters have the say," was Spadoni's first answer. Thirty seconds later, Spadoni contradicted himself and said the County Council could decide which parts of the government study commission's recommendations go to the voters.
His first answer was the correct one. The final decision on recommendations of a government study commission lies with the voters, not County Council.
15 comments:
Can't we ever be great, like Lehigh County?😥
Two things to note.
First, did the entire McClure team write your posts tonight. You obviously work for them, so they probably gave you a break and wrote the stories themselves.
Second, you should demand the dissolution of the county legislature as you are a lover of one-man rule, you hate everyone on county council except Cusick. Hopefully McClure appoints you not only to be chief propagandist but also the sole legislator for the county. Then he and the rest of his crew can tweet you your instructions during your council meeting.
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ASK FOR. YOU JUST MIGHT GET IT.
If we continue electing walking rectums like we do presently, no new form of government will serve the people. Why would anyone in their right mind want to go back to the inefficient "Row Office," Commissioner form of Government? What the hell is wrong with these people?
1:31, I feel very strongly that County Council must act as a check on executive overreach. All too often, the legislative branch has rolled over and abdicated too much power to the exec branch on all levels of government. This surrender of authority is precisely why Wolf was able to keep a state of emergency as long as he did. It is the legislature that gave the Governor this power. So no, I have no problem with healthy tension between government branches. But there's a difference between being a check and micromanager.
I like Vargo Heffner. I believe she's very dedicated. But she's a micromanager, and not a very good one. The main reason the pay study applies to nonunion only id bc of the RFP her "governance" committee crafted, and now that the horse has left the barn, she complains. She is upset about being kept in the dark regarding a bid process that is purely administrative, regardless who crafts the RFP. She wants to drag in the people who are conducting the pay study while they are in the middle of their job bc she wan, which will both impede progress and compromise independence. Her stated reason is nonsense. She had the opportunity to ask all the questions she needed to ask before the bid was awarded.
Heckman's complains about the gift ban betray astonishing ignorance. All he has to do is read the HRC and the current Admin Code to realize that the current code, as drafted, is in derogation of the Charter and negates the gift ban. Something was needed. It is true that most of this gift abuse goes on at the admin level, but it is the elected officials who are noticed. If he doesn't want to look over his shoulder, he should not be in office. He pt himself in a spotlight and is in no position to complain about the glare.
I was also astonished at the complete ignorance displayed by Council members and their lawyer. How could they not know that the HRC providing for dismissal from office is complete horseshit? Why did Spadoni fail to correct Heckman when he spouted that nonsense? Whey did Spadoni contradict himself in the span of 30 seconds? Why was it he, a lawyer, who made the policy suggestion that it is time to do a government study?
It has to be the worst meeting I've watched since Myers undermined the authority of the Sheriff.
Here's my take on Council:
Cusick - engaged, dedicated, informed.
Giovanni - engaged, dedicated, informed.
Goffredo - engaged, dedicated, informed.
Brown - lazy, absent, politically motivated, full of himself.
Vargo Heffner - engaged, dedicated, micromanager.
Heckman - engaged, dedicated, distractingly verbose, thin-skinned, can be funny
Myers - lazy, vulgar, pompous, stupid
Lott - likable but lazy, rubber stamp
Zrinski - opportunist, rubber stamp, unfocused
Why stop at elected sheriff? Elect orphans court, criminal clerk, prothonotary, recordor of deeds. Open it all up then.
You forgot coroner.
This is what I like about you Bernie. You’re willing to put your party tribalism aside and honestly critique our council members according to observed performance. I also think you should smile once in awhile, don’t worry your face won’t crack.
Isn't McClure the one who goes to Philly games with the retirement manager and golfing with the union boss? Not aware of any council people doing that. Not even Spadoni.
I don't really know what McClure or Council does. TYhe only violation I've seen, and it was likely unintentional, was by one Council member. But that's why we need a gist ban. It applies to one and all.
Spadoni erred in his response and you appropriately corrected the mis-statement. If Council were smart, they would appoint a knowledgeable bi-partisan committee to review those sections of the Charter they feel are in-appropriate or outdated and let them determine how to fix those sections that aren't working. Also, please inform us on the number of times the Charter was changed. Thank you
Atty Spadoni you may be a well-respected and successful lawyer but how could you not listen to a disgraced, disbarred former lawyer like this old man who is the joke of the courthouse.
The HRC has been amended by County Council at least 18 times. It could probably use another 18 amendments. One of the amendments that Council pushed was to call themselves Commissioners instead of Council members. That was pure ego. I'd agree it's time for a government study commission. I'd like to see whether it can be limited to a wholesale overhaul of the Charter instead of a return to the Comm'r form of government. I'd want that question researched.
Thank you for bringing to our attention that the Charter has been amended by Council on 18 different occasions. If we throw into that calculation the number of Home Rule laws that are ignored, I am sure we would be up to at least 25 cases that the Charter was changed and/or is being ignored. Why doesn't the governing body recognize that something needs to be done and simply address these Charter shortcomings? If someone challenged this in the courts, I think the Courts just might say "no more changes" because 18 to 25 changes is a major overhaul of the Charter and a study commission would be necessary to make the changes. An observation (just by reading your Blog) clearly shows areas of the Charter that are violated on a regular basis are:
Election Law violations (duties and responsibilities of the Election Board)
Employee/elected officials violating the gift ban laws
Employee participation in the County Retirement system (including elected officials)
Commissioner violations on meetings i.e. what constitutes a quorum?
Also to be addressed are:
Term limits for elected officials
Bidding procedures i.e. commissioners influencing the bidding process for contracts.
Forfeiture of office for violating State Laws or the Charter
This is a good start and really should be looked at with a sincerity to improve the system minus the politics.
Just a few observations.
If you are really serious about this non-issue all you have to do is put the HRC gift ban in the code, word for word. Also ban the acceptance of any campaign contributions from people or organizations that do business or associated wiht the county. This is another PR move by McClure and his boy O'Hare.
The true measure of who to be worried about with gifts and money is the officials campaign account. If you really care, that would; be your focus. County Executives get truckloads of cash, council; members get little unless they are perpetual candidates like Zero Zirinski.
4:57, It's only a nonissue to those of you on the take. If you're suggesting putting the gift ban into the Admin Code, then you are admitting there is an issue. Regarding campaign finance reform, I actually crafted ordinances several times and introduced them from the floor. The two Council members who supported reform were Angle and Brennan. I also appealed to Council to put county campaign finances on the Internet. Council took no action. Stoffa directed it be done, but he directed it for all offices and it was too much for the elections office. I plan to request that campaign finance reports for candidates for county office be posted online. It's time. Also, I was successful in persuading Council to video record meetings. In case you haven't noticed, and you haven't, I have pushed for reforms to make government more responsive and transparent for decades. I've had some successes and some failures. Sometimes, reform measures can be good government and good politics. You apparently dislike something that could make them all look good for once. But that's you.
Post a Comment