Lawmaker drafts bill for recall voting in Pa

By JEANNE STARMACK

VINDICATOR STAFF WRITER

NEW CASTLE, Pa. — There isn’t any way right now for Pennsylvania residents to get rid of an elected official who either isn’t doing his job or has committed wrongdoing in office.

That could change if state Rep. Jaret Gibbons, D-10th, is able to pass legislation that would allow a process for recall voting. He’s drafting the legislation now and hopes to have it ready to present to the Legislature in the fall, he said, even as a study commission is meeting in Lawrence County to consider whether a different form of government there could give county residents more powers to eject a thief or a deadbeat from office.

The commission, elected by voters last November after a push by the county League of Women voters to get it on the ballot, has been bogged down with infighting. It almost voted itself out of existence in July until one of the members changed his mind, and another vote put it back on course. One of its members, who had voted to end it, then took the issue to court Friday, only to be told his motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the commission was defective. He has vowed to refile his motion.

As the commission squabbled and struggled to make headway in its mission to determine whether to recommend a form of government different from the three-commissioner form Lawrence has now, those commissioners and county Treasurer Richard Rapone got together with Gibbons to work on his legislation.

Rapone said he contacted Gibbons after hearing feedback from county residents, especially one who suggested researching how to remove an elected official from office. He said many residents he talked to are comfortable with the form of government the county has and with the officials who are in office now.

That wasn’t the case in 2004, when former county Treasurer Gary Felasco was accused of stealing taxpayers’ money. He was convicted in 2006 and removed from office then. In the interim, county commissioners were powerless under state law to remove him because he was an elected official.

It was a frustrating time for the commissioners and for residents who wanted Felasco gone.

While the criminal investigation was going on, Felasco showed up for work only sporadically, said Dan Vogler, a current commissioner who was also in office at the time. Not only was Felasco accused of theft, but the county was paying him to perform work he wasn’t doing, Vogler confirmed.

Vogler said people didn’t understand that the commissioners’ hands were tied.

“I had a guy in church on Sunday come up to me and poke me in the chest,” Vogler said. “He said, ‘You’re not doing enough to get rid of Felasco.’ People thought we had legal authority to remove him, and we didn’t.”

Vogler said the commissioners asked Felasco to resign. He wouldn’t.

The state Senate has the power to impeach an elected official. But it would not step in, Vogler said, because it uses the power sparingly and for bigger cases, such as those that involve state officials.

“You have 67 counties in Pennsylvania,” Vogler said. “The Senate felt that if they do it for one, it set a precedent and they would be having impeachment hearings all the time.”

The study commission is trying to explore home rule, which would let the county write its own charter, and a council/manager form of government that could allow for the firing of a financial executive who was caught stealing. It is doubtful the panel will have a proposal ready for the November ballot, but by studying home rule, it is allowed nine more months to make a recommendation.

The panel has been criticized by courthouse officials who say its members haven’t taken the time to really learn what their jobs entail. Several county residents have told the study panel at its meetings that they are happy with the officials who are in place now and that they don’t see a need for a change.

Those were the views people had expressed to Rapone.

Gibbons said this week that after Rapone called him, he researched what could be done. He met with Rapone and the commissioners two weeks ago to review points for his legislation, he said.

Gibbons will draw from other states’ laws.

Eighteen other states have recall provisions, with Minnesota’s allowing for a probable cause court hearing.

Rapone said the probable cause hearing, along with a rule that an official would have to hold an office for six months before the recall process could start, would prevent partisan witch hunts.

Grounds for probable cause would be malfeasance — wrongdoing such as theft, or nonfeasance, such as not performing job duties. A court would have to determine probable cause, then a petition drive could start. It would require a number of signatures that equalled 25 percent of the amount of voters who’d elected the official.

It would be possible to oust an official who could later be found innocent in a criminal trial, acknowledged Rapone, Vogler and Gibbons.

But a court would determine probable cause based on evidence, Gibbons said, and it wouldn’t be an easy process to oust an officeholder.

Nor should it be, said Vogler. Due process is important, he said. And, he noted, the system of waiting for the outcome of a criminal trial worked in the case of Felasco.

But it worked slowly, he said.