But today, top business leaders said they have taken the first step in a process that could lead to the most dramatic restructuring of courthouse operations in history.
Lancaster Chamber of Commerce & Industry officials are seeking the creation of a panel to potentially draft a “home rule” charter, as six other Pennsylvania counties have done.
“We think it’s a very appropriate time for Lancaster County to look at alternative forms of government,” Mark A. Ritter, chairman of the chamber’s board of directors, said at a news conference this morning.
“The environment and the conditions are right.”
Home rule charters essentially shift much of the responsibility for local government from the state to the community. They allow voters to decide what form of government represents them; in other home-rule counties, it is common for one executive and a large, geographically-elected council to represent their residents.
Historically, the county has been represented by a board of three at-large commissioners. Although this board has seen its share of controversy in recent months, chamber officials say their initiative has nothing to do with current operations.
“It would be irresponsible if it were,” said chamber president Tom Baldrige. “To assume that would be quite shortsighted in that this really is a process that could have very long-term implications for Lancaster County and needs to be taken seriously, not just as a knee-jerk reaction to any current situation.”
The current commissioners have endured persistent criticism of their decision to sell the county’s nursing home. A grand jury is investigating the hiring of the county’s former human services director, who, it was found, had falsified his resume and who played a key role in that sale, according to county officials.
Moreover, the commissioners have squabbled, amongst themselves and other politicians, over the proposed hotel and convention center in downtown Lancaster.
The Chamber of Commerce’s news conference was the first step in building support for a broad, nonpartisan coalition to help win passage of a government study commission.
The chamber is trying to get two questions on the Nov. 7 ballot. The first would create the panel and the second would allow voters to elect 11 people to serve on it.
For the questions to appear on the Nov. 7 ballot, the county commissioners must first give their approval. If they do not, the chamber would be required to collect signatures from five percent of those who voted in the last election for governor, or 6,236 people.
If the chamber succeeds in getting the questions on the ballot, and voters approve a study commission, the panel would have up to 18 months to decide whether the county should adopt a “home rule” charter. During that time, the commission could draft a proposed charter that would be subject to voter approval.
Lancaster County Commissioner Molly Henderson said she is in favor of getting the issue on the November ballot. She does not believe a home rule charter would be a “magic bullet to modernize County government, but I believe the opportunities should be considered by a study commission elected by the voters,” Henderson said in a statement.
“The problem we have here,” Henderson said in an interview, “is the board of commissioners is both the legislative and executive body rolled into one. That is inherently going to cause some situations that are not so smooth.”
But Commissioner Dick Shellenberger said the issue has not been publicly discussed enough for him to support or oppose such a move.
“Let’s take it to the public and then find out,” he said, adding that he and his fellow commissioners have been “criticized a whole lot” for not doing so on other issues.
The state Legislature first allowed local governments to study and create their own home rule charters in 1972, when it passed revisions to Pennsylvania’s constitution.
That year, local leaders — including those with the chamber — sought and appeared to have won voter approval to establish a study commission. But a court later found fault with instruction given to voters, and invalidated the election results.
The study board disbanded, and the issue died locally. But since then, six Pennsylvania counties and 71 townships, borough and cities adopted home-rule charters. The counties are Allegheny, Delaware, Erie, Lackawanna, Lehigh and Northampton counties.
G. Terry Madonna, a Franklin & Marshall College political analyst who was a Lancaster County commissioner in 1972, said adopting home rule allows municipalities freedom from codes established by the state.
“Right now, the commissioners are permitted to do only what state government allows them to do,” Madonna said. “Under home rule they can do anything not proscribed there.”
Home-rule counties can consolidate courthouse operations, appoint a strong executive much like Allegheny County has done, and expand the board of commissioners into a much larger county council. One such council has 17 members from across the region.
The call for a home-rule study won support of Bruce Beardsley, who chairs the county Democratic Committee. He pointed out that his party has long advocated for a home-rule charter.
“You’ll probably have a greater diversity among elected officials, if they are chosen by district,” Beardsley said. “The truth is, the existing system — we’ve just outgrown it.”
The county’s population is approaching 500,000 people, according to 2005 estimates from the Census Bureau.
“A county our size, to be represented by only three elected officials who have both legislative and executive requirements is not an efficient and effective system,” Beardsley said.
But Terry Kauffman, a former Republican county commissioner, was more cautious about the move toward home rule, saying it is being considered mainly because of dissatisfaction with the current board.
“Right now it seems like there’s an effort to do that because the public generally perceives the board as being dysfunctional,” said Kauffman. “I don’t think there’s any question about that, from what I’m hearing.”
He said that adding more representatives, in the form of a larger council, wouldn’t solve those issues. “You could have a county council that’s dysfunctional. We can look to Harrisburg and Washington to find that model,” Kauffman said.
Bob Brenneman, another former Republican county commissioner, sees the present time as a perfect opportunity to consider a move to home rule.
“The best example is the extreme situation we’ve had over the past couple of months, or even a year or more,” said Brenneman, who served from 1988 through 1991.
“The county government, as large as it is, being ruled by a committee of three commissioners I don’t think is good,” he said. “It really needs a legislative body and a county executive.”
Brenneman tried to resurrect the failed 1972 study commission during his term, but found no support among his fellow commissioners.
“I think the time is right for mustering the interest now in the county to get a petition to be successful,” Brenneman said.
Talkback on LancasterOnline
Welcome to the new TalkBack on LancasterOnline. Please use the comment box below to share your opinion on this
article. If you would prefer to use the previous TalkBack forums instead, please use this link.
