web1_TTL102916miseri.undergrads.jpg

Summer Misericordia undergraduates present work at the annual Poster Presentation program

web1_TTL102916redeemer.visit_.jpg

Holy Redeemer students visit St. Jude’s

<p>Six questions will be on Luzerne County&#8217;s Nov. 8 general election ballot &#8212; one amending the state constitution to increase the mandatory retirement age for judges statewide and the remaining five involving proposed changes to the county home rule charter.</p><p>The question asking voters if they want to extend the judicial retirement age to 75 may seem familiar to primary election voters because it was on the April 26 ballot. A state decision to move the question to the November ballot came too late to remove the question from the primary ballot.</p><p>Although the primary election votes on the question did not count, the results were close in the county, with 50.66 percent of voters approving the age extension and 49.34 percent rejecting it.</p><p>Since the primary, legislators have changed the wording of the question .</p><p>Unlike the primary election version, the general election question does not state that judges currently must retire at age 70.</p><p>The current retirement age is only contained in a more detailed &#8220;plain English statement&#8221; that must be posted at polling places. These statements are required to further explain all ballot questions, but the statements don&#8217;t appear on the electronic ballots along with the questions, county election officials said.</p><p><strong>Wording on judge question</strong></p><p>The question&#8217;s exact wording on the ballot: &#8220;Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?&#8221;</p><p>Critics have maintained the new version of the question is too vague and may cause some voters to mistakenly believe they are reducing the retirement age or imposing an age limit for the first time.</p><p>The retirement age increase would apply to all judges and justices in the state, including those serving the county Courts of Common Pleas.</p><p>Supporters of the change say courts will benefit from keeping more experienced judges on the bench full-time. Judges can switch to senior status after mandatory retirement, but they must remain part-time.</p><p>Opponents argue a retirement age of 70 promotes the election of new judges and reduces the possibility an unfit judge would remain on the bench too long.</p><p>Luzerne County Judge Thomas Burke would be directly impacted by the vote because he turns 70 in December. He has said he would &#8220;very much like&#8221; to complete his current 10-year term through 2020 but will respect the will of the people.</p><p><strong>Charter changes</strong></p><p>The proposed home rule charter amendments would make three general changes:</p><p>&#8226; Lift a ban requiring county board/authority members to wait one year after leaving their seats to run for county office.</p><p>&#8226; Allow employees of companies with county contracts to serve on boards and authorities at the council&#8217;s discretion.</p><p>&#8226; Require a majority of council votes &#8212; instead of four &#8212; to amend the county budget in the years following council elections.</p><p>Although there are three changes, five questions regarding the Home Rule Charter appear on the ballot because the first two changes must each appear twice on the ballot, one applying to authorities and one applying to boards/commissions.</p><p>The charter requirement to wait one year to run for county office was publicized in 2015 when Mark Rabo and John Gadomski received primary election nominations for the county council. Both men gave up their unpaid board seats around the time of the primary &#8212; Gadomski on the county Industrial Development Authority and Rabo on the county Redevelopment Authority. Neither won in the general election.</p><p>Gadomski and Rabo said at the time they were unaware of the ban when they got on the ballot and questioned the fairness of the prohibition.</p><p>The county solicitor&#8217;s office concluded the state constitution permits home rule counties to set such eligibility requirements for its office holders and said the two men could not legally serve if they won.</p><p>Charter drafter Jim Haggerty said the restriction was intended to prevent citizens from using connections developed from serving on boards and authorities as &#8220;leverage&#8221; to run for the council.</p><p>The proposed charter amendment involving employees of county contractors was prompted by regular complaints the prohibition goes too far and blocks qualified professionals from serving on boards and authorities. The ban applies to paid county consultants and those employed or compensated by entities that have county contracts.</p><p>An often cited example of someone deemed ineligible to serve is James Reino, a UGI Energy Services regional sales and operations director who had volunteered for the authority overseeing the Mohegan Sun Arena in Wilkes-Barre Township, believing his marketing experience could help the entertainment venue. The county solicitor&#8217;s office said Reino was ineligible because UGI has a county contract.</p><p>Several council members have argued the ban prevents conflicts of interest and should remain in effect.</p><p>The change would give the council power to overrule the prohibition on a case-by-case basis when making board and authority appointments, requiring applicants to publicly disclose county business relationships and an opportunity for the public to weigh in before the council votes.</p><p>Councilman Rick Williams has pushed for the change, saying &#8220;a lot of good people&#8221; had to be rejected from serving due to a &#8220;de minimis relationship.&#8221; When voting to put the question on the ballot, Councilman Robert Schnee said the council is &#8220;losing excellent people&#8221; willing to volunteer to serve.</p><p>Council Chairwoman Linda McClosky Houck has opposed lifting the ban, saying the council should not &#8220;say which shade of gray is acceptable.&#8221;</p><p>The proposed amendment related to the budget was based on a concern that four council members could hold up implementation of a budget in the years following council elections.</p><p>&#8220;If you can&#8217;t get a majority that at least wants to revisit the budget, you&#8217;re not going to get a majority that wants to amend it, either,&#8221; McClosky Houck has said.</p><p>Councilman Stephen A. Urban has disagreed, saying the proposal limits the power of incoming council members to suggest changes to the budget and tax rate that could be embraced by the public and, ultimately, a council majority.</p><p>To learn more about key Election Day races and issues, visit the <a href="https://www.timesleader.com/tag/Election2016" target="_blank">Times Leader election page</a>.</p><style>
.neFileBlock {
	margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.neFileBlock p {
	margin: 0px 0px 0px 0px;
}
.neFileBlock .neFile {
	border-bottom: 1px dotted #aaa;
	padding-bottom: 5px;
	padding-top: 10px;
}
.neFileBlock .neCaption {
	font-size: 85%;
}
</style>
<div class='neFileBlock'>
<div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_Haggerty-4.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Home Ruler Charter drafter James Haggerty says the provision in the charter dealing with those serving on authorities and/or boards and commissions was intended to prevent citizens from using connections developed from serving on boards and authorities as&#8217;leverage&#8217; to run for the council. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo0>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_Haggerty-4.jpg</photo0><caption0>Home Ruler Charter drafter James Haggerty says the provision in the charter dealing with those serving on authorities and/or boards and commissions was intended to prevent citizens from using connections developed from serving on boards and authorities as&#8217;leverage&#8217; to run for the council. </caption0><photoCredit0>Bill Tarutis file photo | Times Leader </photoCredit0></div><div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_Judge_TLStock-4.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Luzerne County Judge Thomas Burke could be affected by the ballot question regarding the age of judges. Burke, who will be 70 years old in December, would have to step down if voters vote in favor of the question. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo1>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_Judge_TLStock-4.jpg</photo1><caption1>Luzerne County Judge Thomas Burke could be affected by the ballot question regarding the age of judges. Burke, who will be 70 years old in December, would have to step down if voters vote in favor of the question. </caption1><photoCredit1>Bill Tarutis file photo | Times Leader </photoCredit1></div><div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_TTL110515transportation1-4.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Luzerne County Council member Rick Williams, left, is pushing for a change to the Home Rule Charter that would allow those who have served on authorities or boards/commission to run for the county council. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo2>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_TTL110515transportation1-4.jpg</photo2><caption2>Luzerne County Council member Rick Williams, left, is pushing for a change to the Home Rule Charter that would allow those who have served on authorities or boards/commission to run for the county council. </caption2><photoCredit2>Bill Tarutis file photo | Times Leader </photoCredit2></div><div class="neFile"><img class="neImage" src="https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_voting02-4.jpg">
<div class="neCaption">Voters will have the opportunity on Election Day to vote on a question regarding the retiring age of judges and the Home Rule Charter. </div></div><div class="metaInfo"><photo3>https://www.timesleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/web1_voting02-4.jpg</photo3><caption3>Voters will have the opportunity on Election Day to vote on a question regarding the retiring age of judges and the Home Rule Charter. </caption3><photoCredit3>Pete G. Wilcox file photo | Times Leader </photoCredit3></div></div>
<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta><p>By Jennifer Learn-Andes</p><p>jandes@www.timesleader.com</p></bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><factboxMeta><p><strong>Questions that will appear on the Primary Election ballot:</strong></p><p>&#8226; Shall the Pennsylvania Constitution be amended to require that justices of the Supreme Court, judges and magisterial district judges be retired on the last day of the calendar year in which they attain the age of 75 years?</p><p>&#8226; Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 8.02.H as follows?: Delete the provision: &#8220;For a period of one year after leaving office, no member of any County board or commission may serve as an elective County official.&#8221;</p><p>&#8226; Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 8.03.E as follows?: Delete the provision: &#8220;For a period of one year after leaving office, no member of any County Authority may serve as an elective County official.&#8221;</p><p>&#8226; Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 5.10.B as follows?: Add to existing language at Section 5.10.B.: An affirmative vote of a majority of the current members of County Council shall be required to introduce any ordinance under this subsection.</p><p>&#8226; Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 8.03.E as follows?: Persons who are employed or otherwise compensated by individuals or entities that have contracts with or are paid consultants of Luzerne County or any of its boards, authorities or commissions shall be allowed to serve on Luzerne County Authorities after such person has fully disclosed the nature of their interests and relationship with Luzerne County in writing. Such written disclosure by an Authority applicant shall be made public at a meeting of Luzerne County Council prior to the applicant&#8217;s appointment to an Authority and public comment shall be permitted.</p><p>The provision currently restricting appointments of such individuals to Luzerne County Authorities shall be deleted from the Home Rule Charter.</p><p>&#8226; Should the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter be amended at Section 8.02.H as follows?: Persons who are employed or otherwise compensated by individuals or entities that have contracts with or are paid consultants of Luzerne County or any of its boards, authorities or commissions shall be allowed to serve on the Luzerne County Boards and Commissions after such person has fully disclosed the nature of their interests and relationship with Luzerne County in writing. Such written disclosure by a Board or Commission applicant shall be made public at a meeting of Luzerne County Council prior to the applicant&#8217;s appointment to a Board or Commission and public comment shall be permitted.</p><p>The provision currently restricting appointments of such individuals to Luzerne County Boards and Commissions shall be deleted from the Home Rule Charter.</p></factboxMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta><p>Reach Jennifer Learn-Andes at 570-991-6388 or on Twitter @TLJenLearnAndes.</p></shirttailMeta></div>

Six questions will appear on Luzerne County’s November election ballot