Luzerne County study commission OKs court budget transfer recommendation

Luzerne County’s Government Study Commission finalized its budget and finance recommendations Monday.

The citizen commission is drafting a revised county home rule charter for voters to consider in November.

Although the commission approved several budget and finance alterations last week, it had tabled a decision on budget transfers made by the county’s elected district attorney and controller and judiciary.

The charter in effect since 2012 says all three can transfer funds within the budgets under their direct control but must seek county council approval if the transfers are needed to increase salaries or create new positions.

When the panel had discussed tweaking the wording but keeping this provision intact, Commission member Tim McGinley expressed concerns.

McGinley said he was worried the provision will eventually prompt litigation, particularly related to the judiciary.

He cited a past disagreement over council’s ability to reject court budget transfers, referring to months of back and forth over raises for 90 non-union court employees in 2014.

The judiciary had $134,000 in budgeted funds available to cover the raises but needed a budget transfer to move the money into the appropriate salary category in at least one department.

Then-county manager Robert Lawton had refused to sign paperwork allowing the raises because the charter says council must approve budget transfers needed to increase salaries or create new positions.

Court officials had maintained the budget transfer approval did not apply to the courts because state law gives them sole authority over how their budgeted funds are spent, as long as they don’t exceed the overall amount allocated by the county for all court branches.

Council majority approval for court raises would have been unlikely because the 210 non-union workers outside court branches were not receiving 2014 raises due to ongoing budgetary problems.

Court officials had said county officials have refused past court requests for pay increases and that numerous supervisors were paid less than the unionized employees they oversaw.

In the end, the court reassigned a court reporter department employee to court administration, which freed up budgeted salary funds in the court reporter’s budget to cover the raises without a transfer.

Court officials also agreed to permanently eliminate several positions to ensure the raises were sustainable in future years.

The county administration had said it was forced to allow the court raises in the payroll system because no transfers were required.

During Monday’s meeting, study commission members considered two options: omit the judiciary from the requirement to obtain council approval for such transfers or give county council flexibility if it wants to set limitations.

Six of the seven commission members approved the flexibility option, with the only no vote from McGinley.

Commission Solicitor Joseph J. Khan, of Curtin & Heefner LLP, said the flexibility option would permit council to pass an ordinance broadly defining parameters without the need to amend the charter.

Commission Chairman Ted Ritsick said he supports that alteration because council would have latitude to preserve or loosen restrictions, possibly in response to future court rulings related to county court budgets.

Commission Vice Chairman Vito Malacari concurred, saying the solution preserves council’s control over budgeting while providing “an outlet to be free from potential litigation that may arise.”

Commission member Stephen J. Urban said keeping the provision forces dialogue between the judiciary, council and manager over personnel-related budget matters.

Also voting in support were Commission Secretary Matt Mitchell, Commission Treasurer Cindy Malkemes and Commission member Mark Shaffer.

Again citing the 2014 battle, McGinley said the judiciary was still able to proceed with its raises. He said council’s most important step is ensuring it sets the correct budgets for all departments in the first place.

In other business Monday, the commission had another lengthy discussion about the county ethics code and commission but did not vote on a recommendation.