The Jim Haggerty Document- A Lesson

James Haggerty Times Leader Photo

Mark Guydish asks this question in his article "Can public alter home rule charter?"

The Home Rule Charter being hammered out by the Government Study Commission is either a giant step toward reforming a county government steeped in corruption or a pointless reshuffling of the deck without setting up effective checks and balances to wipe out the chronic abuse of power exposed by multiple federal corruption arrests since January 2009.

One of the contentious issues surrounds an Appointed Manager vs. an Elected Manager. The minutes of the Commission from 01/27/2010 reflect the vote of the various commission members on the subject.

Chairman Jim Haggerty instructed the Government Study Commission to make a formal vote on the Elected Executive position versus the Appointed Manager. The Appointed Manager won by a vote of seven ayes. There were four votes for an Elected Executive by Jeffrey Niemiec, Christopher Kersey, Richard Morelli, and Charmaine Maynard.

From Mark Guydish's article:
Government Study Commission member Charmaine Maynard tried to placate those who raised doubts by saying the current version of the charter is “a rough draft,” but Haggerty disagreed with the characterization.

With an 11-member commission hammering out everything from major elements to verbal minutes at weekly meetings, he said some of the larger issues – including the council-manager format – are all but final if they were approved by a 7-4 vote on the commission.

It appears that Commission Chairman James Haggerty has essential control over this document. It is SOP's opinion that he wants it to be "final" because it suits his aspirations. He tries to counter criticism over the appointed manager.

Haggerty countered that no system is perfect, and that voters should ask themselves if the proposed charter is better than the current system. He insisted it is, largely because it dilutes the political clout of individuals by having 11 council members instead of three commissioners, and explicitly bars council from meddling in the day-to-day management of the county.

The question Haggerty has to ask himself is whether poliitical clout on the Luzerne County Government Study Commission is diluted or concentrated.
If Mr. Haggerty has aspirations to become the "appointed manager" if this current version is passed by the voters he should make that aspiration public.

Hazleton Councilman Joseph Yannuzzi made the argument to the Commission that at least some council members should be elected by districts. Haggerty dismisses those efforts to elect county council members by district because that would interfere with any plan to become manager. He effectively has not just diluted but drowned out the voice of residents in Southern Luzerne County would have concerning the governing body taxing them. His draft can concentrate "Political clout" in northern Luzerne County which would allow him to obtain the seat as appointed manager.

Yannuzzi was trying to impress upon the Commission that the government he presently represents is a model for the county. Hazleton's form of government, while not a Home Rule charter, contains a legislative branch, city council, and an administrative arm, the Mayor. All office holders are elected and it seems to work fine. It is suspect that Haggerty is quick to dismiss this model in favor of the Jim Haggerty document.

Haggerty's comparision of Democrats and Republicans on the present form of commissioner government doesn't hold water. Given the voter registration makeup of Luzerne County Republicans will always have a very hard time controlling the county council. It was the Democrats who have been ensnared in the biggest corruption scandal in Luzerne County's history.

Allowing election by district can make the reason for seeking the office not one of control by party but by interest of the people the office holder will represent. Allowing election of the Manager, similar to Allegheny County, will eliminate auspicious control by council members over the manger.

James Haggerty needs to be told this document is not the Jim Haggerty document but the reform so sorely needed for this county. If he truly wants to counter claims it is his document he should accept this challenge. Mr. Haggerty are you willing to sign a pledge not to seek the position of appointed manager for the next 10 years, no exceptions? Let's see where his allegiance truly lies.

Proposed Luzerne County Charter- A New Set of Problems

The proposed charter for Luzerne County government was unveiled yesterday according Mark Guydish of the Times Leader. Kingston Mayor James Haggerty is chairman of the commission charged with looking to reform Luzerne County's form of governing. According to sources who spoke with SOP Haggerty has been crafting his own spin on the document that appears to fall short of its true goal.

“In my personal view the biggest problem in Luzerne County is that political authority and day-to-day operations are both in the hands of the same few people,” Haggerty said, referring to the current system of electing three commissioners who often negotiate contracts and then approve them.

The proposed system would have 11 part-time council members elected to jobs that pay $8,000 a year who would in turn set policy, pass ordinances and approve budgets.

But council would appoint a full-time manager to run the county, who in turn would appoint people to do jobs currently handled by elected row officers. The charter as written expressly bars council members from getting involved in hiring and firing of employees, or negotiating contracts.

Therein lies the problem. If the manager was elected like the process in Allegheny County that person would not have to answer to the council members. Appointing a manager will not eliminate any of the issues listed above. If the manager knows that his/her job is dependent on the majority vote of the council then the issue of undue pressure will be ever present.

Wilkes University Political Science Professor Tom Baldino – a member of the government study commission that drew up a home rule charter rejected by voters in 2003 – was skeptical about the hired manager proposal, rather than having an elected executive.

“I’m still not convinced this is going to work the way you all envision,” Baldino said, warning that, because the manager would be hired by the council, he would be “beholden to the council” and thus not always act independently.

In looking at his outline of the proposal there are some significant issues.

To that end, he said:


• Having 11 part-time council members dilutes the ability of anyone to influence county business and allows more people to participate in the process. It requires council members to build coalitions and find consensus, and potentially allow a minority to get a larger say if council is divided and they hold the deciding votes.

Mr. Haggerty must live in a vacuum. Every school district in the state blows that theory skie high, higher than the oil plum in the gulf.

• Having elections every two years, with five council members up for election one time and six the next time, means the public has more opportunity to elect new members if voters disagree with actions taken by the council.

That scenario mirrors congressional races. The office holder is constantly running for election and at $8,000.00 per year fundraising efforts will drown out the common person and their vote.

Hazleton City Council President Joe Yannuzzi argued that county council members should be elected by district to assure the Hazleton area of a voice. Haggerty countered that the current system requires election of a “minority commissioner,” leaving the county for decades with two Democrats and one Republican on the commission, and asked “What has that done for Republicans? Haggerty, you didn't acknowledge the problem, you deflected it with your answer. Your like the Democrats who keep complaining about George Bush. He is the past, he is gone. The Home Rule Charter proposal means the system you are talking about will also be the past. So what are you going to do in the present about representation for a significant part of the county that is always second fiddle?

One final commnent. You should add one more row office called Director of Records similar to Allegheny County. To place all the control into the hands of one person simply breeds a different type of corruption. Mandate digital conversion of all records that would be available online. The Director of Records would be required to plan and execute that task. The efficiency associated with such a move would outweigh the initial investment.

A Tale Of Eachus, Kanjorski, And Leighton

Here is a picture of Todd Eachus delivering money to the City of Wilkes Barre. Last time I looked Wilkes Barre isn't in his district. Evidently he likes helping out Mayor Tom Leighton more than he cares for the district he represents.

There is irony and paradox to the latest attacks by Leighton on his opponent, State Rep. John Yudichak of Nanticoke. In this article by Andrew Staub of the Times-Tribune Leighton is quoted "I have a payroll that I have to meet," Mr. Leighton said. "I cannot let our city employees go without pay in November and December, such as the state police and other state employees did during a state budget crisis when John was collecting per diems." Uhh...Tom according to records Eachus claimed over $27,000.00 in per diems last year.

Leighton's theme, which seems odd since Todd Eachus has been shopping Leighton around the district, seems to be echoed by other candidates vying for Harrisburg seats. In the 112th challenger Kevin Haggerty attacked Rep. Ken Smith over the budget impasse in this Times-Tribune article.

But at a debate Wednesday, challenger Kevin Haggerty took a direct shot at Mr. Smith, admonishing the incumbent for taking per diems during the 101-day state budget impasse, while nonprofit organizations were forced to take out loans, cut services and lay off workers to stay open.

"It was a travesty," said 37-year-old Mr. Haggerty, a Dunmore resident.

Another opponent, John Keeler, had this to say about his fellow Democratic legislators holding office. Mr. Keeler, 58, of South Scranton, said his highest priority will be holding the Legislature accountable for its "fiscal irresponsibility." He said he was outraged to learn of the multimillion-dollar budgets legislators kept for their own "incidental expenses," while Pennsylvania was in a fiscal crisis.

"There's a big frustration out there about how this government has been run," Mr. Keeler said. "I have 30 years of experience in banking and I have thorough understanding of how government finances work.

It gets better. Challenger Bob Lesh, 53, of South Scranton, and a 12-year member of the Scranton School Board, said he decided to run after learning the state had cut programs for veterans even while keeping their legislator budgets intact. His brother and son, Vietnam War veteran David J. Lesh and Iraq War veteran Robert J. Lesh Jr., respectively, both have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, he said.

"It's an embarrassment that legislators did this while they still accept per diems," Mr. Lesh said.

Mr. Haggerty said the need for reform of the General Assembly is what spurred him to enter the race and rally support to unseat Mr. Smith. His biggest priority will be to see a constitutional convention is called and the Legislature reduced in size by half.

"Careless spending, the fact that we have had a failed legislative budget process for the last seven years, it's because of an overabundance of legislators," Mr. Haggerty said.

In this article by Andrew Staub Yudichak gets a boost from Professor Tom Baldino concerning those running for the seat he is vacating. "The best candidate would be the candidate who can model John Yudichak," Baldino said. "Any Democrat who can present credentials as those being similar to John Yudichak's, that is a political philosophy or platform that would play in that district rather well."

Yudichak has relied on a record as a Harrisburg reformer, saying he stood up to party bosses while rejecting a pay raise and pension increase. And he's shook off criticism - such as his collection of per diem money despite his ownership interest in a Harrisburg home - and replaced it with a reform package that would eliminate per diems, impose term limits on legislative leaders and call for a constitutional convention.

During a forum held by the League of Women Voters at the Burke Auditorium at King's College Yudichak and Leighton had some sparks fly. Andrew Staub reports

In response to Yudichak's charges, Leighton said he "would never jeopardize" his integrity and accused the lawmaker of befriending legislators tangled in the Bonusgate scandal.

"John's part of that dome, part of that capitol," Leighton said. "So if the City Hall is part of (problems in) Luzerne County, then you must be part of the capitol problem. Don't paint me with a broad brush when you're in the same atmosphere."

Yudichak bristled at Leighton's suggestion.

"How absurd," Yudichak said. "That's like saying that Tiger Woods' wife is at fault for Tiger Woods' infidelity because she happened to live in the same house.

Mr. Leighton the fact remains that Todd Eachus is in charge of that dome as House Majority Leader. Unless you forgot your position as Mayor you know the buck stops at the top.

Over at the LuLac Political Letter Mr. Yonki writes Yudichak’s issue is the property in Harrisburg he uses with per deim money. Yudichak has been vocal in his demands that the Legislature police itself more but critics say he might be coming to that realization too late.

Unlike Eachus who owns a home in Harrisburg with his wife Yudichak had a twenty-five percent interest in his home which has has since divested himself. The same can't be said of Eachus.

A parallel story running here that is not reported by the press is Paul Kanjorski's support for Tom Leighton. Eachus has an ax to grind with Yudichak over Michael Veon. Evidently Eachus and Kanjorski are putting their political efforts behind Leighton. Of course everyone remembers the story that aired on Fox News concerning Kanjorski's earmark scandal. Jopseh Yudichak, the father of John Yudichak, told the story in the interview.



There is a report that Kanjorski's campaign contributed $20,000 to Leighton. It's his way of getting back at Yudichak for his help to Lou Barletta.

It is amazing how the Democrats are attacking each other on ethics, a sort of election cannabilization if you will. The Republicans get to sit this one out and watch the circus.

Luzerne County's Staffing Woes

The biggest problem in Luzerne County eminates from its workforce. Read the Times Leader article by Jennifer Learn-Andes and Steve Mocarsky to find that there are 1698 full time workers in the county. Maryanne Petrilla and Thomas Cooney are telling us there is no place to cut yet their consultant firm told them they could eliminate 150 employees.

Luzerne County is the second highest employee to population ratio and ranked third with total number of employees. Chester County, ranked number 1 regarding employees has one hundered eighty thousand more residents but only 283 more employees.

“We’re trying to trim and do more with less. We’ve made a commitment that we’re going to try to streamline government and operate as lean as we possibly can,” said Petrilla, the board chairwoman.

Petrilla has publicly said that the county’s decision to furlough 72 workers last year hurt some services. She also said consultant Public Financial Management’s option to cut another 150 positions in one year was unrealistic. Cutting 150 positions could save an estimated $6.4 million this year, the consultant said.

Cooney, who replaced former commissioner Greg Skrepenak in December, said he met with all county departments, and most have fewer employees than they did several years ago. He said he will consider any suggestions on reducing expenses.

“Overall, the departments are running with less, which is what the public wants us to accomplish,” Cooney said.

But minority Commissioner Stephen A. Urban continues to maintain that there is still room for reductions. He said he heard few complaints about service cuts after last year’s layoffs.

Among his suggestions: switch court tipstaffers to part-time, get rid of a Hazleton solicitor position in the register of wills office and cut at least one position from recorder of deeds due to the office’s decreased workload.

Urban said he also believes the county administration could survive with fewer employees.

Here's a suggestion for the Luzerne County Commissioners. Read this paper, Preparing Allegheny County For The 21st Century, regarding the reorganization of the various departments in Allegheny County.

Reduce the Number of Departments

The government of Allegheny County is very fragmented with 30 departments, ten row offices, and an independent court system. These departments range in size from a high of 1,700 to a low of three employees. The director of each of the departments reports to the County Commissioners.

The Committee recommends that governmental functions be consolidated into a much smaller number of departments. There are several ways in which this can be done. A proposed organization chart depicting county government with nine departments is shown on page 13. This char is considered one
option and is not meant in any way to reflect a single ideal reorganization. However, the benchmark counties all had fewer departments, and many had reorganized in order to make such reductions.

Merit-Based Employment System and Employee Ethics

To attract and retain the most competent employees, thecounty need to institute a merit-based employment system.The system needs to be designed to treat all people fairly andequitably while encouraging high levels of performance formemployees. The county should also recruit highly professional and experienced managers. The selection process should try
to identify the most competent and qualified individualsavailable.

Allegheny County has approximately 8,000 employees. Theseindividuals can be hired by the County Commissioners,individual row officers, or by the court of Common Pleas.

Improve the Organization

· Reduce the Number of Departments

· Institute a Merit-Based personnel System Including a Model Ethics Code

· Appoint a Standing Government Improvement Commission

I know..it makes sense and after all this is Luzerne County. If someone can explain why we absolutely need a Recorder of Deeds and a Register of Wills.

Dan Onorato made this statement as part of his 2009 Budget Address.

This year we successfully completed the final phase of row office consolidation with the creation of the Department of Court Records, which combined the former offices of Clerk of Courts, Prothonotary, and Register of Wills, and the Department of Real Estate, which was previously the Recorder of Deeds. We have now reduced the number of row offices from 10 to 4, saving taxpayers more than $1 million annually.

The Luzerne County Study Commission is polluted in its thinking, not sure if it is on purpose or not. Mr. Haggerty is trying, not actually going out of his way, to use the commission to benefit his political aspirations. An appointed manager would not be independent like an elected manager. An appointed manager would always have his job haning over his head by the political elected Commissioners. Its a shame we have an opportunity to streamline Luzerne County but he is standing in its way.