Brown Abdicates Control Over Understaffed Row Offices

Exec John Brown and PJ Stephen Baratta (right)

Most Pennsylvania counties elect their row officers, leading to petty fiefdoms in which cronyism runs rampant. Northampton County, when it adopted its Home Rule Charter, transferred those offices to the County Executive, placing them under his control. For the first 25 years or so, that system worked well. For the last ten years, not so much. From time to time, someone suggests transferring the Criminal and Civil Divisions to the courts. Everyone agrees it's a wonderful idea. Nobody does anything. So last year, when President Judge Stephen Baratta personally pitched this idea to Council, nothing happened.

At least not on the surface. But behind the scenes, Executive John Brown has quietly ceded de facto control over these offices. On paper, he is still the man, and he recently reported to Council that he is still in control. But employees are being told to take their problems to the Court Administrator, who is supposed to make sure that these offices are "more in line with the Court's day to day activities."

What are row offices? Historically, they were located in a row next to the courtrooms. They often have strange sounding names like Prothonotary, Clerk of Quarter Sessions and Orphans' Court. Basically, they are where court papers are filed in civil and criminal matters. They are where people go when they get a marriage license, or open an estate for a deceased relative.

In addition to being a repository for court records, these offices serve another important function. Indices and other dockets provide notice to the world of the existence of liens, estates and other matters that have a direct impact on people and their lives.

It makes sense that the courts, and not the Executive, should run these offices.

"With all due respect," Judge Baratta stated last year, "they're [the Brown administration] not involved in what the clerks do." In contrast, the judges are involved in the legal system, and understand the rules as well as the reason for them. Also, the courts take the hit from higher courts when clerks fail to transmit records to appellate courts promptly. So though I am suspicious of giving courts more control than they already have, this is really a good idea.

Part of the problem was created by John Brown's refusal to fill vacancies in the Civil and Criminal Division. These penny wise and pound foolish staffing shortages have led to instances in which the court has actually had to adjourn and sit on its hands while waiting for Civil or Criminal Clerk.

I have supported this change since it was first proposed over ten years ago, by none other than Ron Angle. But I support it being done the right way, not by some end run around the Home Rule Charter.

Here's what the Home Rule Charter (Section 905) says:

(Section 905) "The County Executive shall have the power to organize and reorganize the agencies under his direction and supervision and to assign and reassign their functions, powers and duties by submitting to the County Council a written proposal on the matter. If the County Council fails by resolution to reject or by ordinance to adopt or modify such a written proposal within sixty (60) days after the date of its submission, such written proposal shall have the force and effect of an ordinance amending the Administrative Code."

So at a minimum, Executive Brown should have submitted a written proposal to Council concerning a reorganization of the Criminal and Civil Divisions. He has no authority to cede de facto control over those offices without Council's assent. This transfer to the courts might also require a Home Rule Charter change. That's because our county constitution (Section 1304 (b) (2)) specifically transfers the duties, powers and functions of Clerks of Court, both Criminal and Civil, "to the County Executive or to his subordinate as provided by law." If control over these offices is transferred to the courts, the people need to approve it.

What is happening now is yet another Brown end run around the requirements of the Administrative Code or, in this instance, the Home Rule Charter.

This leads to another very important question. President Judge Baratta, for very good reason, told Council last year that he wanted control over the hiring process. He correctly called the Civil Division "grossly understaffed," and warned that there are problems created by a delay in indexing judgments. He said things are even worse in the Criminal Division.

So once again, it makes perfect sense to give the courts full authority over the staff. But for whom will they be working, the courts or the Executive?

This is no "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario. There are significant differences between working for the Executive and the courts. The biggest is that those who work for the courts are at-will employees. So do row office employees lose their due process rights?

How about their First Amendment rights, too? Judicial employees are barred from core political speech like political contributions, posting yard signs, circulating nomination petitions or becoming members of party committees. Row office workers are specifically permitted to engage in political activity, and I know one row office worker who is a member of her party committee.

These questions need to be answered, and will almost certainly require a change to an existing union contract.

There was a reason the President Judge appeared in front of Council last year. He engaged in a public discussion of a serious situation. John Brown has chosen to respond privately instead of being transparent, as his oath of office requires.

Council needs to insist on that transparency and accountability. This is not a corporate board room, but a local government in which Council must agree to these changes, even if it is only a test situation. If it is permanent, both Council and the people - remember them? - must agree.

Why You Don't Elect Row Officers

Lamont McClure and Ken Kraft, who want elected row offices for the patronage jobs that will be created in those little fiefdoms, need to read about Schuylkill County.

An Argument Against Elected Sheriffs and Row Officers

Do you want a professional in charge of the County's Deputy Sheriffs or would you rather have an elected hack? In Northampton County, voters have already answered that question. In an exercise of direct democracy, they said they want appointed row officers. Here's how Jerry Seyfried, a Home Rule Charter expert, puts it.

"In 1978, the row offices were abolished, not by politicians, but by the voters of Northampton County. The voters, through the process known as voter referendum, have told you they don't want row offices. The change that was implemented provided a system of checks and balances like no other in the history of the County. The efficiencies that came with the elimination of the row offices and the adoption of the Northampton County Home Rule Charter resulted in cutting property taxes almost in half."

If you're still on the fence about this issue, an excellent argument against elected row officers and sheriffs appears in an Express Times account about an elected Beaver County Sheriff, who's just been arrested and charged with some batshit cRaZy shenanigans.

He told a campaign worker that he'd chop off his hands and eat them.

He told an online reporter that if he asked too many questions or got too cute in his stories, he'd beat him worse than he used to beat the [blacks] in Aliquippa.

He also made conditional threats to "blow out the brains" of several people, including a Prothonotary and another reporter.

Beaver Countian's John Paul, who has had to endure the Sheriff's wrath, says this:

"Small town politics and cronies with big time influence had blanketed his misdeeds from view for far too long. It makes me physically ill when I think of how many he has hurt over his 40 year career, abusing both power and persons to achieve his own self-interests."

With appointed row officers and sheriffs, there are less small town politics or cronies with big time influence.

Row Officer Residency Requirement Vote is Tonight

Late last year, Northampton County Executive John Stoffa selected, as his new Register of Wills, a person with absolutely no experience in that office. She was a paralegal in the Solicitor's Office, and jumped from there to become a Deputy in the elections office. After only eleven months there, with a Presidential election looming, she abandoned ship again, this time for the Wills Office. She ostensibly got the job because she did better in the test than a long-time Deputy. But this written test measured paralegal skills, not Register of Wills skills. Her appointment was also contrary to the wishes of the court, which works with this row office. To make matters worse, this new department head did not even live in Northampton County. It was a blunder. But since that time, Northampton County Council has been trying their best to exacerbate that situation with blunders of their own.

Their first blunder, a bi-partisan one no less, was a proposal by Council members Tom Dietrich (Rep.) and Ken Kraft (Dem.) to make all row offices elected again, just like in the good ol' days. This, of course, would be a giant step backwards in good government, leading to petty little fiefdoms with independent budgets, all of them ripe for cronyism and corruption. Though he backed the proposal, McClure sensed that there was strong opposition to this measure among the remaining six Council members. So, at his suggestion, the matter was tabled and sent to his Legal and Judicial Committee, which has not bothered meeting for over three years. As you might have guessed, McClure hasn't bothered scheduling a meeting.

The second blunder is on tonight's agenda. It's a proposal to require that all row officers be residents of the County.

Northampton County row officers are ministerial. They are not decision-makers. In the Recorder of Deeds Office, for example, I can record a ham sandwich as long as it is acknowledged, properly notarized and has a tax ID number. These clerks would have to take it because they have no discretion. It doesn't matter whether they live in Easton or Emmaus.

So what public policy is served by requiring them to reside inside the County? You could argue that a person who lives here is more invested in his community and cares more. But couldn't that be said of all County workers? And in my experience, it's just not true. A strong work ethic and dedication to duty has very little to do with where someone lives. An Allentown or Phillipsburg resident might very well be a much harder worker than someone who lives just two blocks away from the courthouse.

What this proposal really does is penalize anyone who wants to be a department head. At least thirty per cent of the county workforce lives in New Jersey. This legislation tells them they can never aspire for more than a minor promotion. It also making their lives harder. It reduces their opportunities to find affordable housing, or to be close to family members who help with child-rearing and other intangibles.

If also flies in the face of regionalism. If we are really interested in promoting the Lehigh Valley, a residency requirement should include Lehigh, Warren and Monroe County.

Finally, it reduces the pool of available employees, making it more difficult to find good and qualified people.

So this proposal really has no rational basis and is actually discriminatory. It imposes a burden on some County workers that do not exist with others.

A residency requirement might make sense for first responders like emergency management, deputy sheriffs or even Children and Youth caseworkers. This is because it would reduce their response time during emergencies. But what emergency would require a Clerk of Courts to rush to the Courthouse?

But no attempt is made to impose that requirement on employees where it might actually make sense. That's because these are union positions, and would require 678,932 contract changes.

Aside from an election talking point for Lamont McClure, this proposal is bad government. Good government would entail a re-examination of the selection process for all row officers to insure professionalism over cronyism.

This is Why You Appoint, and Don't Elect Row Officers

Bradford County Comm'rs are suing their own Prothonotary because she used $18,000 in County money for a digitalization project to renovate her offices.

In the meantime, Legal and Judicial Chair Lamont McClure has yet to schedule any hearings on proposed changes to the Home Rule Charter in Northampton County, which would make these offices elected positions once again. That's no shocker. He hasn't bothered conducting a meeting of the Legal and Judicial Committee for over three years.

Proposal to Elect Row Officers Gets Frosty Reception

Peg Ferraro, lookin' lean and mean

Rogue Deputy Sheriff Tom Bachik would love to see an elected Sheriff. That way, unions can install a puppet who will give him triple and quadruple time whenever he farts. So it's no surprise, although a little disappointing, to see Ken Kraft sponsor a giant step backwards for anyone interested in good government. Instead of professionals running offices like the Sheriff or Recorder of Deeds, Kraft wants political hacks installed by the unions. After all, Kraft himself is a business agent. Instead of representing his district, he's representing AFSCME District 88.

Another Council member, Tom Dietrich, also supports making row officers elective positions. At yesterday's Personnel Committee meeting, he claimed this is because of John Stoffa's recent, and very controversial, appointment of Gina Gibbs as Register of Wills. That's funny because, when he spoke to The Morning Call, he denied the proposal had anything to do with the Gibbs' appointment. He's managed to contradict himself in the span of 24 hours, like a good little pol.

Bob Werner chides Kraft and Dietrich

As Kraft makes a play for the unions, Dietrich is trying to portray himself as a populist, hoping that it gets him a few votes in his bid for re-election. As a Republican who supported the sale of Gracedale, he knows he's in hot water.

This appeal to direct democracy has a big flaw, and that was driven home by former County Exec Jerry Seyfried at a hearing on Wednesday. You see, the voters, in an exercise of direct democracy, have already shot down the idea of elected row officers.

In 1978, the row offices were abolished, not by politicians, but by the voters of Northampton County. The voters, through the process known as voter referendum, have told you they don't want row offices. The change that was implemented provided a system of checks and balances like no other in the history of the County. The efficiencies that came with the elimination of the row offices and the adoption of the Northampton County Home Rule Charter resulted in cutting property taxes almost in half.

I spoke, too, but should have kept my trap shut. Council members Bob Werner, Peg Ferraro and Scott Parsons each stated that this is pretty much a terrible idea.

Scott Parsons, as Coroner, can declare me dead

Bob Werner, reacting to concerns that the current appointments are a product of nepotism, chided, "And you think the election process is any better?" He suggested fixing problems with the appointment process instead of "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

Peg Ferraro, who remembers what it was like when row officers were elected, claimed there were "separate little fiefdoms" that were accountable to no one. "You're taking us back forty years," she warned Kraft and Dietrich. She said people get elected for two reasons - popularity and money. Not competence or professionalism. "Be careful what you ask for," she added.

Scott Parsons said bluntly, "This is probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. I can't support this at all."

Why County Row Officers Should Be Appointed

Berks County's former Recorder of Deeds has just been indicted by the feds for stealing money over the years.  She was one of several elected row officers.

One county west, Lehigh County, has only one elected row officer, a Superclerk who does it all.

One county west, Northampton County, has no elected row officers. They're all appointed.

In Pennsylvania's byzantine labyrinth of 67 counties, there are 67 ways of doing things. But some things, like real estate transactions, demand uniformity and consistency. The state claims to be working on rules designed to promote that uniformity.

I'd argue that there's no reason to elect row officers. They tend to be filled by political hacks who have no real understanding of what is involved in maintaining and preserving real estate records. Many of them end up eventually get into trouble.

William the Conqueror, with his Domesday Book, started the uniform system that still exists today. But he appointed his officials.

Until they pissed him off.

Voters To Decide Whether Lehigh County Row Officers Should Be Appointed

Bill Hansell

In a bi-partisan measure that Lehigh County Comm'rs unanimously endorsed on December 21, voters will decide in a referendum next November whether the Sheriff, Clerk of Judicial Records and Coroner should be appointed by the Court instead of standing for election, as is currently the case. Although the four new Commissioners coming on board in January might try to reverse this, there are still five remaining who believe that voters should decide whether row officers should be appointed.

Commissioner Bill Hansell, a Democrat, argued that "the concept of appointing row offices, offices that are essentially administrative offices, has been part of the reform movement of local government for well over half a century."

Over 1,000 counties throughout the country appoint, instead of electing their row officers, says Hansell. The reason, he claims, is "to continue ongoing competence." He cautioned that the current row officers are "extremely competent and extremely dedicated," and it would be "extremely foolish" of the courts to overlook any of them.

Commissioner Percy Dougherty, a Republican, told his colleagues that this is the third time he has pushed for the appointment of row officers. "These are positions that should not be political," Dougherty stressed.

Commissioner Dan McCarthy stated he liked the idea of having this referendum decided during a Presidential election, because that is when voter turnout is historically at its highest.

Northampton County has appointed its row officers since the inception of home rule in 1978.