Changes to county regime studied

By Jeanne Starmack

Lawrence County residents could end up with more powers.

NEW CASTLE, Pa. — Change is good, isn’t it?

A commission that’s studying whether to recommend a new form of government has to answer that question clearly enough to persuade Lawrence County voters to ditch the county’s present system.

Three county commissioners and other elected “row officers” that include treasurer, prothonotary, and register and recorder could be out and a new governmental creature, with an elected council and appointed manager or elected county executive, could be in. County residents could even end up with more powers under a home-rule charter.

The Lawrence County League of Women Voters started the push to study whether change is good, and the group would like to see change come. They have long advocated it, said their president, Ruth Ray. Their vice president, Janet Verone, concurs.

“We have determined this is not the best kind of system,” said Verone. She said the league believes the present form of government is inefficient. “We felt a professional, hired business manager is needed,” she said.

The league was behind getting the question of forming a government study commission on the November ballot. Voters said yes, and 11 commission members, including six write-in candidates, were also elected then.

November wasn’t the first time the league has tried to bring the issue to voters. Five years ago, it circulated petitions and got on the ballot a question of whether a commission should form to study a change.

Voters said yes and a commission convened, eventually making a recommendation for a council/manager form of government. It was shot down at the polls.

The league had to wait five years under state law before it could try again. Meanwhile, a scandal reared up in 2004 over county treasurer Gary Felasco. He was charged with theft in office, and the commissioners were powerless to remove him because he’d been elected. He was not removed from office until his conviction in 2006 for stealing more than $170,000 in tax money.

A council/manager form of government, which the commission is studying now, would not include elected row officers. If Gary Felasco had been handling and stealing county funds under such a system, it would have been easier to get rid of him.

Felasco surely left a bad taste in voters’ mouths, and the league likes to point out that 13,000 people gave the write-in candidates for the commission way more votes than they needed to get elected.

But Felasco’s gone. There are no scandals now involving row officers, and the three commissioners appear to have a fair amount of support from people who trust the way they govern.

“It’s such a drastic change now,” Robert Delsignore, head of the Lawrence County Economic Development Corp., told the study commission at its meeting last week. He said he has been with the county for years, and “I’ve never seen the cooperation we’re getting at this time.”

Richard Rapone, the present county treasurer, told the commission at the same meeting that he resents Felasco’s name being “attached to discussions.” He said that several members were missing the night he made a presentation to the panel, and he questioned how the commission could make an informed decision on what he does.

Even some commission members are questioning why they need to explore a council/manager form of government, especially since the recommendation for one five years ago was defeated.

“It got rejected. Why would we have better success than what they had?” said commission member John DiSanti. “We dance around the whole Gary Felasco issue,” he said, adding that the study for change is supposed to be about more than just Felasco.

“But we’re here because of what he did, essentially. I don’t have a problem with the county commissioner form of government. The format is fine. It’s some of the row officers, the lack of accountability.

“We should fix the problems and not fix what isn’t broken,” he continued. “I would tweak row officer positions, keep some elected and some appointed.” He advocated a “hybrid plan that would suit us better and cause less unrest in the county.”

“Right now, it’s an excellent situation,” agreed commission member John Russo. “But there’s no guarantee for the future.”

Would an elected council and county executive be any more of a guarantee? Some insist no.

“What about the seven members of council?” said panel member Mark Panella. “You [couldn’t] replace them.”

The study commission has been meeting since January, first once a month, then twice a month, and now every week. It has interviewed county officials and those from other counties. Even though it is now studying the council/manager form of government, possibly with home rule, it is not close to making a recommendation for the ballot.

The commission could also decide to recommend the manager/executive form of government, or it could decide not to make any recommendation.

It has until Aug. 6 to get a recommendation for change on the Nov. 4 ballot.

If it decides to recommend home rule along with a change, it would have nine more months to consider options available under state law for a charter that would essentially be the county’s constitution, said commissioner secretary/treasurer Joe Cicero.

Cicero said, for example, that the county could forbid new government officials from firing employees of an old regime.

Voters could petition the council for a change under an issue initiative, he said.

The commission decided to focus on two charters, from Allegheny and Lancaster counties, he said, and it will try to decide what’s best in each of them.

“We concentrate on what’s in the best interest of Lawrence County,” he said.