Both critics and supporters of home rule often point out that the basic form of county government hasn't changed in 300 years.

The last time anyone tried to tweak the system was 1973, when an earlier home rule study was thrown out after a lawsuit.

But if voters approve a home rule charter on Nov. 4, they'll be giving themselves the power to revise the structure of county government every decade.

The draft charter's Article IX, a grab bag of provisions and definitions, calls for creation of a County Government Review Commission, with 11 elected members, in five years after the charter goes into effect to examine how well the charter is working. A new review commission would be elected every 10 years after that.

If the commission recommends changes, voters would have to approve the amendments in a referendum.

Article IX also mandates a merit hiring system, attempts to streamline the county's purchasing process and aims to promote intergovernmental cooperation through a Municipal Conference that would involve all 60 municipalities. And it blocks county government from collecting "windfall" tax revenue in the year following a property reassessment.

John Smucker, vice chairman of the Lancaster County Government Study Commission, which wrote the charter, said the point of reviews is that times and circumstances change.

"We believe that developing a culture of analysis and evaluation of our county government structure will produce, on a reoccurring basis, the continued reform and innovation that are essential to the optimum performance of any large modern-day organization," he said.

Home rule opponents say ongoing reviews will be expensive. GSC member Greg Sahd, one of the three-person minority opposed to the charter, said the system "will cost taxpayers over and over again."

"That's an acknowledgement by the study commission members," said County Commissioner Craig Lehman, a Democrat, "that this is a compromise document, not a perfect one."

A more perfect system?
An eight-person GSC majority that approved the draft charter doesn't think what they've written should be carved in stone.

The biggest change in the charter, they said, is the shift from state control of county government to increased local control through home rule.

A review of the charter's operations five years after it goes into effect, and then every 10 years, won't be as extensive or expensive as the process the GSC had to follow to write a home rule charter, Smucker said.

The GSC argues that the charter will save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year through consolidation of offices and other efficiencies that aren't permitted under the County Code, the state law that now defines how county government is structured.

Other home rule counties in the state have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars more by amending some parts of their charters, Smucker said.

"As the new structure is implemented and the changes begin to take effect," he said, "it may become evident that the capacity to provide at an optimal level the services that are required and expected would require changes to what we have now crafted."

Article IX says that 11 members of the review commission would be elected for one-year terms, using the same nonpartisan process that resulted in the GSC, to study how the charter is working and to report to voters in time for the following year's election. Voters would have the final say on changes.

Critics argue the review process will be unwieldy and expensive. A report by the county Republican committee, which has voted to oppose the charter, contends that Article IX "sets up a permanent system to allow changes."

Sahd said the GSC study has cost $122,086 through June, and ongoing reviews will add to the total.

"This mandated county government review ... will guarantee the public's continued funding of the 'fool's errand' of replacing a more taxing, bigger home rule county government with ever-higher-taxing, ever-expanding county government every few years," he said.

Smucker disagreed.

"It appears obvious that our current structure has groaned amidst a momentous period of transformation over the last several decades that have challenged us politically, economically and culturally," he said. "Our current structure has not 'performed flawlessly,' as the opponents of home rule contend, without substantiation.

"Thus, the continued reform and innovation of county government is essential for keeping the organization and management capacities in line with the demands of our future. And thus a periodic review every 10 years of organizational structure and methods of operation can only be viewed as a healthy and worthwhile endeavor and not something that is inherently unwieldy."

Article IX, which lists a number of miscellaneous provisions and defines terms used in the charter, also sets a cap of 5 percent on the amount of "windfall" tax revenue that the county may collect following property reassessments or changes in the ratio of assessed value to property value. The current ratio is 100 percent.

The 5 percent is a change from 10 percent in current state law for the year following a countywide reassessment.

GSC member Mary Clinton, a former Upper Leacock Township supervisor, consulted three local municipal managers about the cap; all thought 10 percent was preferable, partly to allow governments to build a "cushion" against future tax increases.

"Their question to me was — Why do we think that it should be changed? Our answer is that we wanted to error on the side of fiscal conservatism and reduce the ability of the county to establish hidden tax increases," she said.

Commissioner Chairman Dennis Stuckey, a Republican, noted that the charter's cap excludes the value of newly constructed buildings, while state law contains no such exemptions.

"Why is a more complicated and costly process proposed?" he asked.

"To be fair to taxpayers, there really shouldn't be any kind of windfall provision," Lehman, a Democrat, said.

"I know state law allows for that, but when you do reassessment, you do reassessment in a neutral fashion, and then if you want to change your tax rate, you do that after reassessment. You shouldn't be able to hide a tax increase."

Hiring on merit
Article IX establishes merit as the baseline for hiring, firing and promotions and says that personnel policies established in the Administrative Code — a rulebook of administrative procedures that will be drafted if the charter is approved — may include examinations as a basis for hiring or promotion.

Employees covered by civil service systems are not subject to exams, and workers in collective bargaining agreements are excluded from the personnel system to the degree their contracts require it. Existing employees do not have to pass a test to keep jobs.

Only the county administrator, heads of departments appointed by commissioners, members of advisory boards and commissions, temporary or part-time employees and elected officials are exempted from exams. GSC members pointed out that Section 2.07.5 of the charter requires the administrator to be hired on qualifications and merit.

GSC member Jim Miller said county government now uses a merit hiring system, but the system isn't required by the County Code or established by ordinance. As a result, "merit hiring is subject to disregard at any time by the [commissioners] without penalty."

The controversial 2004 hiring of Gary Heinke as chief services officer — Heinke resigned after questions were raised about his resume — demonstrated how the merit system could be disregarded "in favor of a personal choice that can only be described as cronyism," Miller said.

So "the GSC felt that the importance of a merit hiring system as the foundational underpinning of a professional administration required the permanency of charter codification."

"Consistently, this home rule charter has taken authority away from elected officials who have been chosen by the voters and gives it to an appointed employee," Stuckey said. "The voters of Lancaster County must decide if they want their elected representatives to have no authority in setting policy and making decisions in running the county."

Article IX calls for a competitive procurement process. The county has such a system now, but GSC members think it can be improved.

Miller said the County Code requires competitive bidding for services and materials of $10,000 or more, and at least three price quotes for amounts between $4,000 and $10,000. The code does not specifically permit "competitive negotiations."

"These dollar thresholds have been in place since 1955 and have not been adjusted to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index that has occurred over that time frame," he said. "... In today's dollars, those 1955 thresholds would be $30,920 and $77,400, respectively."

Article IX does not spell out details of the procurement process, which would be covered in the Administrative Code. But Miller said the GSC anticipates that the rules would set more reasonable limits for bidding, allow the county to negotiate with its bidders and designate a "contract officer," like those used in the state and federal governments, who has limited authority to buy on behalf of the county.

"The County Code already governs the procurement process," Stuckey said, "and my prediction is that a home rule process will copy and mirror the County Code. Why go to great effort and expense to basically clone what we already have?"

Article IX also creates a Municipal Conference, representing all 60 local governments in the county. Smucker said the conference would be similar to the 12-member Lancaster Intermunicipal Committee.

"We heard from some residents in outlying areas of the county they think they are forgotten," GSC member Joyce Moyer said. "We need a specific system in place that formalizes intergovernmental cooperation and communication between county municipalities and county government."

The Republican committee's report contends that the charter "mandates participation by local municipal governments"; Moyer said participation is voluntary. Sahd noted that the cost of the conference hasn't been calculated.

"This Municipal Conference would afford the opportunity for all municipalities, on a voluntary basis, to send a representative to learn what county departments provide; to ask questions of both appointed and elected county officials so they have a better understanding of what is available and planned so they can better serve their constituents," Moyer said.

"… Why wouldn't municipalities want to participate?"

Another Article IX point that has drawn fire is a provision allowing certain officials to issue subpoenas.

The Republican committee report contends county commissioners and agency heads "would have power to issue subpoenas without any oversight," which would mean "overreaching police power" and a "huge potential for abuse."

Sahd said the provision "represents an unprecedented power grab by the pro-home-rule bureaucratic elite."

But GSC member Sam Mecum said the subpoena provision covers only officials or agencies that have authority to hold public hearings, and the only entity in the charter that has such power is the board of commissioners.

The charter also includes a clause specifying that if any other county officials are granted subpoena power by different state laws, the charter will not take that ability away.

"Critics of the charter, with a very dark and cynical view of human nature, seem to think that the GSC has not done its homework to make sure that some future officeholder does not go haywire and maliciously send out subpoenas for some kind of political revenge," Mecum said. "The question is, why would that suddenly happen now, under the charter, if it hasn't already happened under the County Code?

"These same critics need to ask themselves this question: From which political party would come the official bent on abusing his or her subpoena authority?"

Next: Article X, transition provisions.

---

Helen Colwell Adams is a Sunday News staff writer. E-mail her at hcolwell@lnpnews.com, or phone 291-4962.
blog comments powered by Disqus