Dallas City News

Does Luzerne County need its own ethics commission?

This question was recently debated by the county’s Government Study Commission, which is drafting a revised county home rule charter for voters to consider in November.

The existing charter in effect since 2012 established a commission composed of the county district attorney, manager, controller and two council-appointed citizens (one Democrat and one Republican).

It also required council to adopt an ethics code to be policed by the commission. Council’s original code prompted complaints about a lack of due process. The revised code put the initial investigation in the hands of outside contracted attorneys, which led to concerns about a lack of commission involvement.

After discussing options at two prior meetings, Study Commission Chairman Ted Ritsick suggested charter streamlining that would emphasize bans on nepotism and retaliation and allow council to determine if a commission is needed and, if so, how it will be structured.

Ritsick emphasized that the state ethics act, whistleblower protections, union collective bargaining agreements and other applicable state and federal laws already exist to define and enforce a range of ethical requirements.

His proposal, if accepted, is “about empowering council” and not “getting rid of anything,” he said.

“The ball would be in council’s court to either retain, revise or remove the commission,” Ritsick said Tuesday, noting public input would be required before any council decision.

When Ritsick’s proposal came up last week, commission member Tim McGinley said the discussion about other laws and enforcement options outside the charter increasingly made him question if an ethics commission is needed.

Commission Vice Chairman Vito Malacari said he agreed with McGinley’s assessment.

Commission member Stephen J. Urban concurred, saying the charter should allow council to decide if an ethics commission is warranted and how it should be structured. The public would have an opportunity to show support or disapproval, he added.

Commission Secretary Matt Mitchell said he agrees with McGinley because other options are available to address ethical violations.

The options cited include a complaint with the state ethics commission or reports to human resources or law enforcement.

Based on history to date, Mitchell said the county’s home rule ethics structure often has been used as a “weapon” to target people with “frivolous complaints.”

“The effectiveness is not what was intended,” Mitchell said.

If a study commission majority decides an ethics commission is not in the county’s best interest going forward, the commission must determine if it wants to abolish the commission and related code or revise that charter section to give council discretion to make that decision, said Commission Solicitor Joseph Khan of Curtin & Heefner LLP.

Malacari, Ritsick and Urban said they agree with providing council discretion.

Commission member Mark Shaffer cautioned fellow members against abolishing the ethics commission if they want voters to approve the proposed new charter.

Shaffer said that action, coupled with a recent majority decision to start fresh in calculating term limits for incumbent elected officials, would cause the proposed charter to “get a very negative character in most people’s minds.”

“I think that if you get rid of the ethics commission, you really risk pissing people off. I think people want more accountability, not less,” Shaffer said, adding that he “wouldn’t put all faith in the state ethics commission.”

McGinley said he understood what Shaffer was saying but believes strong ethics language in the charter personnel section would address county administration-enforced requirements for workers, and other employees and elected and appointed officials would be covered by the state ethics act.

McGinley said only one person ended up “getting in trouble” for an ethics violation under home rule, and it was through the state ethics act and state ethics commission.

Although he did not identify the person, he was referring to past election director Marisa Crispell. The state ethics commission determined in 2020 that Crispell violated the state ethics act for recommending the county’s purchase of electronic poll books from a company while she served on that company’s advisory board and for failing to disclose more than $650 in transportation/lodging/hospitality that had been provided by the company, the commission said.

As punishment, Crispell was required to pay $3,500 to the state plus $500 to the commission to help cover its costs to investigate and enforce the matter, prior published reports said.

Commission Treasurer Cindy Malkemes said she agrees with Shaffer’s point about “what the public is going to think.”

Ritsick said the commission will further review the matter when it discusses the personnel section of the charter because the topics are related. He expects that discussion to occur at the commission’s April 7 meeting.

The commission’s next meeting is at 6 p.m. Thursday in the county courthouse on River Street in Wilkes-Barre. Instructions for the remote attendance option are posted under council’s online meetings section (scroll down) at luzernecounty.org.

Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.