County to lay off Sheriff

[Statkowski]

Well, apparently it has made the media:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/_lsq...2-19-2012.html

[streaker69]

So the County Councilmen have no veto power, and no influence in decisions, but they're just there to be "kept in the loop"? So there's really no need for them to be there at all, may as well eliminate those positions as well.

Good luck, people of Luzerne, the Emperor has dissolved the government.

[kadar]

Originally Posted by streaker69

So the County Councilmen have no veto power, and no influence in decisions, but they're just there to be "kept in the loop"? So there's really no need for them to be there at all, may as well eliminate those positions as well.

Good luck, people of Luzerne, the Emperor has dissolved the government.

Sounds like Obama's wet dream.

[YosemiteSam]

Reading is fundamental. This will answer most of your questions. The charter sets County gov. up like the federal gov,except the County executive is appointed not elected. Most executive office holders are appointed by the county executive with confirmation of the council.


http://www.luzernecounty.org/content...Signatures.pdf

[mrjam2jab]

Somebody print the charter for future reference...

Section 1.04—Rights Reserved to the People. No provision of this Charter and no
action by any Luzerne County elective official or employee of Luzerne County acting
under its authority shall infringe upon the rights, privileges, and powers reserved or
guaranteed to individual persons or to the people by the Constitution of the United States
or the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

[MDJschool]

"County officers shall consist of commissioners, controllers, or auditors, district attorneys, public defenders, treasurers, sheriffs, registers of wills, recorders of deeds, prothonotaries, clerks of the courts, and such others as may from time to time be provided by law. County officers . . . shall be elected at the municipal elections and shall hold their offices for the term of four years, beginning on the first Monday of January next after their election, and until their successors shall be duly qualified; all vacancies shall be filled in such a manner as may be provided by law. . . . Provisions for county government in this section shall apply to every county except a county which has adopted a home rule charter or an optional form of government. One of the optional forms of county government provided by law shall include the provisions of this section." Pa. Const. art. IX, sec. 4.

I can't really tell what it means to say that the section doesn't count but home rule charters have to include the section...to what purpose? Unless "has adopted" refers to counties with optional forms adopted prior to the 1968 Pa. Const., such that all counties at the time of adoption otherwise shall have sheriffs regardless of their future optional form, and I'd have to look up the history of that. Or does the final sentence mean that the legislature, in coming up with 'exemplar optional forms' of local government, has to include a mandatory provision for these offices, yet for the other optional form exemplars, they do not?

A "layoff" would be unconstitutional if the office of the sheriff is a constitutional office, for which the removal provisions in the Pa. Const. are the sole removal method.

[wa3ra]

There may be some case law already established here in PA where certain offices mandated by the state constitution MUST be elected; just saying that the position 'shall be appointed' in your Home Rule charter doesn't make it so, especially given the definition of the sheriff under the state.

A very dangerous violation of common law; the sheriff is 'of the people'...and even Californians elect their own.

[MDJschool]

Originally Posted by wa3ra

There may be some case law already established here in PA where certain offices mandated by the state constitution MUST be elected; just saying that the position 'shall be appointed' in your Home Rule charter doesn't make it so, especially given the definition of the sheriff under the state.

A very dangerous violation of common law; the sheriff is 'of the people'...and even Californians elect their own.

Constitional provisions may and do abrogate the common law, and sometimes constitutional provisions simply codify common law. It seems pretty clear that Pa. Const. art. IX, sec. 4 would seem to do just that. The only question that jumps out at me is whether only those counties who had adopted a home rule charter or optional plan of government by the time of the 1968 Pa. Const. may forego the art. IX, sec. 4 rules on elected sheriffs of a fixed term, or whether any county who adopts such a thing at any time may do so. "A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General Assembly at any time." Pa. Const. art. IX, sec. 2.

I notice that the Pa.Code. does not have the Luzerne County Home Rule Charter published, and I see that it is a relatively recent development. That of course invokes the question as to whether their charter complies with art. IX, sec. 4 and further I'd like to see evidence that the charter was duly adopted. But if the General Assembly has passed no law that provides that the sheriff only be elected, or something of breadth that would necessarily include that the sheriff only be elected, and the constitutional provision applies to the formation of any home rule charter at any time, I don't see what stops them from choosing the method of putting the sheriff in office, pursuant to art. VI, sec. 1. However, from there, the exclusive removal provisions of Pa. Const. art. VI apply, which requires any one of the following for appointed civil officers: impeachment, art. VI, sec. 6; "remov[al] at the pleasure of the power by which they shall have been appointed", art. VI, sec. 7, or removal by Governor with some help of a senatorial hearing, art. VI, sec. 7.

Although art. VI, sec. 7 appears to require good cause in both the case of elected officers, and all civil officers deposed by the Governor, but not for appointed civil officers, McSorley v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 134 A.2d 201 (Pa. 1957) read in a 'reasonable cause' requirement for 'removal at the pleasure'. The court just guessed that it should be there, but if it were correct, a 'layoff' would seem unconstitutional.

[SimpleMan]

Originally Posted by kadar

Sounds like Obama's wet dream.

Actually, it appears to be the wet dream of Kingston Republican (gasp!, yes republican) Jim Haggerty who was the chairman of the committee that wrote and proposed the charter.

[CountryStyle]

Sounds like another Murtha style representative.