Too few show up to get work done

By Jeanne Starmack

It hasn’t been easy for the government study panel.

NEW CASTLE, Pa. — In a meeting room at the Lawrence County Government Center, seven people were working intently on a new constitution for the county.

For almost an hour Wednesday evening, they voted on what they wanted in the new home-rule charter that they and fellow members of the county government study commission will recommend to voters not this, but next November.

Suddenly, John Russo, who was leading the meeting, pointed out they were getting a lot of 4-3 votes from the seven — a minority of their 11-member panel.

They would need six votes, a majority of the entire commission, to pass the articles in the charter, he’d realized. The seven people there were faced with wondering whether the hour’s worth of work they had just put in would be for nothing in the end.

“I move we go home,” said commission member Dick Audino, to laughter from the others. And that’s what they did, after complaining that poor meeting attendance is hurting the commission’s work.

The commission, approved by voters in November 2007, is charged with deciding whether the county should change from a three-member board of commissioners to a new form of government. Right now, the panel is pursuing a recommendation of seven part-time council members and an appointed county manager under the home-rule charter.

Wednesday’s episode underscored the troubles the commission has faced since it began meeting in January.

Infighting and arguing has left onlookers at meetings confused as to what the commission is doing and why.

It even voted itself out of existence at one point, only to vote later to bring itself back — a vote which landed six members in court in a case brought by Audino, who wants to see the commission disbanded.

Audino has argued, among other points, that some panel members talked member Dwayne Evans into changing his vote, and that was a conspiracy. The county common pleas court disagreed, and in August dismissed Audino’s motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the commission from meeting. But Audino is taking the issue to court again Thursday.

Meanwhile, the six commission members he sued are having to pay legal fees out of their own pockets. County commissioners turned down a request to reimburse their costs totaling $1,600. Because they were sued as individuals, said Commissioner Steve Craig, the county is not obligated to pay their fees.

“Our solicitor sent a letter saying it’s not an expense we were required to pay,” Craig said, adding that the study commission could have paid around $500 a year for insurance that would cover members’ being sued.

The commission, which was originally only supposed to meet for nine months, is allowed a nine-month extension because it is working on a home-rule charter.

But now it’s out of money, with bills that exceed the $12,000 in a budget that the commissioners agreed to only for this year. It has asked the commissioners for more money, and they’re balking because, they say, they need to know what the money will be used for.

Joe Cicero, the study commission’s secretary, said the county commissioners have a legal obligation to fund the panel. It has asked for another $12,000 for its second nine months. Cicero also said the $12,000 budget “was not a cap,” and that the commission has the right to ask for more money for expenses.

Craig agreed the county must allocate funds for the commission. He also pointed out that commissioners have say over how much the panel gets, and that the county allocates money from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.

“We operate on a fiscal schedule,” Craig said. “We can’t appropriate on a rolling basis.”

He also complained that the commission’s request for more money doesn’t specify what time period the money would be for.

“We’re not in the habit of shipping out $12,000 just because someone asked,” he said.

Cicero said that he will go to a commissioners’ meeting with a detailed budget for the money.

“That would be refreshing,” said Craig after hearing that Cicero plans to do so.

So far, the biggest commission expense was $8,000 for its solicitor, Charles Mansell. The other $4,000 has included paying a secretary and buying office supplies, Cicero said.

Craig questioned whether Mansell needs to be at every commission meeting.

“Our [commissioners’] solicitor has been to one meeting in four and a half years,” Craig said.

Perhaps the biggest question for the study commission is this: Is all this worth it? Why should voters want to switch to a council-manager government?

Cicero said the legislative and administrative powers of government would be separate, where as now, they are not.

“We need to separate the functional part of administration from the people that make the laws,” he said.

“It works fine,” Craig responded about the way the commissioners govern now.

Craig also said a part-time council won’t offer residents the access to their government that commissioners, during two meetings a week, offer now.

Another reason for considering the change is the specter of Gary Felasco, the former county treasurer who stole taxpayer funds. Because he was an elected official, Felasco was able to stay in office for two years until he was convicted of criminal charges.

Under a council-manager form of government, a county financial officer could be an at-will employee and could be fired, Cicero said.

But he also acknowledged that he favors making it difficult to dismiss employees to save them from being fired for political reasons.

Craig pointed out that state Rep. Jaret Gibbons of Ellwood City is working on legislation that would give voters the right to recall a thieving public official.

“What the state really needs is Gibbons’ reform proposal,” he said.

starmack@vindy.com