Why 6thTuesday Pre-Election Campaign Finance Reports Should Be Mandatory For All Elections in Pa.

Under current Pa. law, only statewide candidates must file 6th Tuesday pre-election reports, which cover the period between June 8 and September 22. Other nominees, including state house and senate candidates, can wait to detail their expenses until October 23, 2026, the 2d Friday before the actual election. This system worked when most people voted on election day. People could inform themselves in advance about who is financing electoral hopefuls.  That system no longer works. 

Changes in our election laws now permit Mail-in Ballots and Ballot by Demand well in advance of election day. Candidates have responded by intensifying their fundraising efforts much sooner than in previous campaigns. You can see this in your mailbox on a near daily basis. Those who wait to make their pitches risk losing a critical segment of voters who prefer the convenience and simplicity of MIBs and Ballot-by-Demand over standing in line at the polling place. 

The problem is that many who chose to exercise these voting alternatives have no idea who is funding the campaigns of the politicians they choose. They are unable to follow the money in any meaningful way. 

For that reason, the state legislature should change current campaign finance laws to make 6th Tuesday pre-election reports mandatory in all campaigns. 

NorCo Court Administrator Charged With Criminal Mischief After Domestic Dispute

Earlier this month, Lehigh Valley Live reported that Northampton County's Court Administrator Jermaine Greene has been the subject of a temporary Protection From Abuse Order (PFA) based on allegations by his wife that he soaked his wife's clothing in gasoline, broke her rib and threatened to kill her. 

It is important to note that a temporary PFA is based on allegations alone. Rightly or wrongly, I generally avoid writing about temporary PFAs unless they are accompanied by contemporaneous criminal charges or involve a police officer. I've taken a lot of heat for refusing to write about this story. Greene has many enemies at the courthouse. Moreover, there are those who would rather see me writing about Greene's PFA than a very negative Grand Jury report about Gracedale. 

I am writing about the PFA now because criminal charges have been filed. Greene been charged by Middle Smithfield Tp police with criminal mischief as a summary offense based on his wife's allegation that he soaked her clothing in gasoline on August 22. No charges have been filed concerning any assault or death threat. 

The courts have declined comment.  

(This was originally posted on 9/26, and is being reposted).

President Judge Craig Dally: DA Can Hire Assistants Without Interference By Executive

Back in August, I told you about a mandamus action that District Attorney Steve Barratta filed against the Northampton County Executive. The suit was filed after 11instances in which the Exec has prevented Baratta from onboarding new hires. 

A mandamus action is one that compels a government official to perform a clear and nondiscretionary duty that it has refused to perform. In this action, Baratta filed a motion for peremptory judgment, which can only be granted when his right to relief is clear. 

It is.

Late last week, President Judge Craig Dally ruled in Baratta's favor. (See links to Opinions  below)

In this action, Baratta filed a well-written brief that should serve as a primer for anyone interested in county government. 

Judge Dally ruled, as he did once before when John Morganelli was DA, that the county's top prosecutor has the right to select the pay grade for a newly hired assistant District Attorney so long as he remains within the budget allotted by County Council and stays within the pay grade scale they establish. "[T]he District Attorney has not asked this Court to grant him the 'unfettered authority to cut checks from a checkbook that belongs to the County,' is not asking the Court to grant him the ability to exceed the budget allocated to his office by County Council, nor is he arguing for the authority to construct salary standards for new hires by pulling numbers out of the sky on his own accord."

"A cursory review reveals that the Home Rule Charter bestows within the District Attorney a hiring power, which this Court has applied to encompass the authority to select the pay grade step, on the schedule and within his budget provided by County Council, at which his newly hired Assistant District Attorneys start. Any insinuation otherwise is flatly inconsistent with the law of this County."

The Pa County Code does provide that the "number of assistants and salary shall be fixed by the county salary board [which is county council]." But as Judge Dally observes, " Since the District Attorney is not pursuing the unilateral authority to select his pool of assistants or construct the salary schedules for his Office, the Court finds that the District Attorney's position is wholly compliant with [the County Code]. Simply selecting the pay grade step on the schedule produced by County Council does not constitute the District Attorney infringing upon County Council's authority to fix the salaries for his assistants."

What makes this case truly bizarre, aside from the Executive's interference with an independently elected official, is that Northampton County courts have already ruled on this exact question. In the Morganelli case, to which I alluded above, the Judge Dally ruled that "[w]hile the District Attorney is limited by Council in the numbers of assistants he can hire and the range of the salaries he sets for them, he, pursuant to his hiring power, selects the pay grade step at which each of his Assistant District Attorneys start."

Instead of following an established precedent, the county tried to have Dally recuse himself. Not only did that effort fail, but the county solicitor's office was itself disqualified because it was trying simultaneously to represent Lamont McClure, a former Exec and current assistant solicitor, who had been subpoenaed to testify. The solicitor's office was conflicted. Does that office represent him or the current Executive? 

(In the past, I've been able to upload judicial opinions and briefs to Scribd. That system is currently inoperable, but I have uploaded Judge Dally's Order Denying the County's Motion for Judgment as his Order granting DA Baratta's Motion for Peremptory Judgment to Google Drive. You can click on the links to read these matters). 

Should NorCo Council President Have Unfettered Authority to Appoint Committee Members and Chairs.

In early July, Northampton County Council voted 6-3 to establish a Gracedale Oversight Committee proposed by Council member David Holland. Earlier that evening, Executive Tara Zrinski condemned the idea. Council President Ken Kraft first tried to table the matter, and when that failed, he voted against it. So did Council members Kelly Keegan and Nadeem Qayyum. (Qayyum had argued in support of the Oversight Committee, so I think his No vote was a mistake.) Though he ultimately voted to establish the committee, Council member Jeff Warren said he had "serious" reservations about the word "oversight."

Each of County Council's standing committees exist for that express purpose - oversight.

After this vote, Kraft chose to ignore the expressed will of a Council majority and dragged his feet at establishing any oversight committee. July and August breezed by with nothing. It looked like that would happen in September, too, until District Attorney Steve Baratta released the findings of an Investigative Grand Jury highly critical of Gracedale's administration. 

Now the committee has been established and Kraft named Keegan the Chair even though she voted against it. He also put himself on the committee, although he voted against it, too. 

The Chair should have been Holland, who not only proposed the idea of a Gracedale Oversight Committee, but was also himself an administrator there and elsewhere. 

Near the end of last week's meeting of Northampton County Council (September 17), Holland suggested that it's time for the governing body to decide how committee members are appointed. Holland pointed out that though the Home Rule Charter provides that the Council President (currently Ken Kraft) has the authority to preside at meetings, nothing in either the Charter or its rules and regulations governing the conduct of meetings invests Council President with the authority to members to Council's various standing committees. That has been a matter of tradition rather than law. He believes the President should nominate the committee members and Chairs, but the vote to confirm should be made by Council's nine-member body. 

This matter has been referred to Council's Governance committee, which is next scheduled to meet in October. 

If Council does decide to take control of committee appointments, it should do so by ordinance so that it binds future county councils. 

What Government Reforms Would You Like to See - Part 2

Yesterday, I presented you with a list of governmental reforms that many of us would like to see. The comments were quite interesting.  

One person, likely a member of NorCo Council, attacked me for supporting term limits for county offices. I do believe term limits for state and federal office are way overdue. But the truth is that I never supported term limits on a county level and consider that a gray area. I would oppose them for offices like borough council or township supervisor because those offices pay very little but take up a lot of time. It is hard to attract good people. On the county level, I did support letting the people decide the question in a referendum. This was opposed by former Council members Kevin Lott, Ron Heckman and Tara Zrinski. It was also opposed by former Exec Lamont McClure, whose veto had to be overridden. One person suggested that a term limits bill should be called the Bob Freeman Act. 

Most of you would like to see some form of open primaries but a few of you would limit voters to party members. I know that outfits like Working Families oppose open primaries and I think this is probably because the only way they can get one of their more extreme candidates nominated is through a closed primary. 

One of you, a reader named Hoople, had a great idea. "If you cannot vote for a candidate - do not live in the area they will represent - you cannot contribute to their campaign. Exceptions for relatives - if your, for example, son is running for office and lives out the area, you can make a small donation to the campaign.

" "If you are a paid elected official and you vote for a tax increase, your pay is adjusted down by the percent you approved. 17% tax increase? Your pay takes a 17% cut.

"If you are a paid elected official, you cannot endorse candidates at campaign events. Writing an op-ed in support is sufficient. No more using a paid day to travel and rally for someone."

I've begun work on a post detailing elected officials who accept donations from their subordinates as well as people who have business interests with the municipality they represent. It is a fairly widespread pratice, but I consider it a form of soft corruption that should be banned. I expect to bring you that story in a day or two.

What Governmental Reforms Would You Like to See?

Below is a list of government reforms proposed, way back in 2016, by Ron Beitler (now a Lehigh County Comm'r), myself and a few readers. These were sent to then Governor Tom Wolf and the Lehigh Valley delegation to the state house and senate. I never received a reply.  

These are neither Republican nor Democratic proposals. You either believe in good government or you don't. Feel free to add any suggestions you have. 

1. Term limits now and tweak the terms. Three four-year terms for State Reps. Two six-year terms for State Senators. A two-year term for State Reps is too short. They have to start campaigning for the next election virtually the day after they win. (I would oppose term limits for municipal offices because it is hard enough to attract people.)

2. Reduce the size of PA government so state rep districts have 85,000 people within. This is small enough to maintain constituent services at the current level, but large enough to eliminate 52 positions entirely.

3. Eliminate pensions for elected officials. Salaries for a full-time state legislator should be adjusted to be the median for the district represented. It is a full-time job, but not a career. Pensions are for career positions.

4. Enact Resign-to-run rules that would apply to any full-time elected position that draws a taxpayer funded salary.  Lehigh County Controller Mark Pinsley should not be able to use the perks of his office as a springboard to the state senate. The only exception is if the candidate is in the final year of his term.  

5. End gerrymandering by establishing independent commissions to do the redistricting. (The current commission is appointed by incumbents to help them keep their jobs.  

6. Require all candidates for statewide office to file campaign finance reports electronically so the people know immediately how the campaign is being funded. Too many candidates refuse to file electronically, and the state elections office is never in a hurry to get reports online.  Each county government should adopt ordinances requiring that campaign finance reports be posted on the county webpage within 24 hours of filing. (NorCo lists campaign finance reports, but this is at the whim of the Exec, who could change her mid tomorrow. County Council needs to adopt an ordinance requiring their publication).

7. Ban the use of campaign funds for criminal defense.

8. Increase penalties for noncompliance with state campaign finance laws and continue the requirement that a candidate pay for violations out of his own personal funds.

9. All local governments should be required to provide an Internet broadcast of every meeting. If it is too expensive, the government should be dissolved.

10. Ban gifts of any kind, on a state and local level.

12. Require receipts for per diem payments.

13. Allow independent voters to participate in Primary Elections.

14. Ban local governments and school districts from attaching risky derivative "swaps" to their debt.

15. Ban candidates or elected officials from using campaign funds to make contributions to any other PAC or candidate committee. This prevents money laundering and ensures that money given to a candidate is used only for his campaign.

16. Limit campaign expenses to year of election requiring forfeiture of unspent monies. Eliminate rolling campaign accounts and expenditures in non election years. I believe district magistrates must spend it or lose it and cannot accumulate funds when they are unopposed. Similar rules for everybody.

17. LIST candidates on the ballot (per office) in random order with no party affiliation attached.

18. In addition to term limits, place "None of the Above" on the ballot for every elective office. If "None of the Above" wins a majority or plurality of the votes, the other candidates are disqualified and a new slate of candidates (including "None of the Above") must be drawn for a new election. Lather, rinse and repeat until someone other than "None of the Above" receives a majority of the votes.

*****

Some new ideas 

19. Limit both individual and PAC contributions to $1,000 a year. 

20. Ban all public employees from contributing to candidates in races for the municipality by which they are employed. 

21. Prohibit all individuals who contribute to candidates for a specific municipality from having any form of business relationship with that municipality for a period of two years after making the contribnution.