In 1968 a new local government article to the Pennsylvania Constitution
guaranteed the right of all Pennsylvania counties and municipalities to adopt
home rule charters and exercise home rule powers. The constitutional change was
hailed as a watershed in the history of local government in Pennsylvania. The basic concept of home rule was
straightforward. The power to act in municipal affairs was transferred from
state law, as set forth by the General Assembly, to a local charter, adopted
and amended by local voters.
Change is never easy
and in fifty years, only six Pennsylvania counties have adopted home rule as
their form of government. In 2002 Washington County voters approved a
commission to adopt a proposed home rule charter. Unfortunately, the work went
for naught when the referendum to approve the draft charter was defeated in a
subsequent election. Many believe the effort was doomed to fail because
Washington County was not ready for major revisions in government
structure. For a variety of reasons now
is the time to revisit home rule in Washington County.
I can hear the doubters as I put pen to paper: “We tried
that already and Washington County turned down home rule.” “This is sour grapes
after Democrats lost county wide elections in Washington County.” “Give the new
Commissioners a chance to govern.” “Home Rule is about raising taxes.”
Washington County was
a much different place at the turn of the century when home rule was first
considered. We have now evolved from a rural
farming district into one of the most unique local areas in the country. An
urban bedroom community in the north, with a large industrial park, close to an
international airport. A county with a destination entertainment complex at the
intersection of two interstate highways, with a casino, race track and discount
shopping mall. It is a modern industrial county at the center of the Marcellus
Shale fracking industry. Our southern border blends into Appalachia, an area
where the dying coal industry and years of neglect is still marked by poverty. Clearly, the cookie cutter model for county
government, mandated by Harrisburg, does not fit Washington County’s changing
profile.
My position is not based on the recent changes in party
leadership of the commissioners’ or row offices. Had the Democrats retained control of county
government it would still be time to revisit home rule.
The argument that
home rule is only about officials seeking to raise taxes is not true for
Pennsylvania counties that have adopted this form of government. According to a
study conducted by Penn State: “the residents of home rule counties enjoy a
greater level of government services yet do not pay higher taxes than the
residents of non-home rule counties.” I
have no doubt that our fiscally responsible county officials can be trusted
with broad based home rule taxing authority to fashion creative solutions for
our citizens.
What is to be gained by adopting home rule in Washington
County? First, the county row offices could be eliminated and replaced by a non-elected,
modern Department of Court Records. The
small patronage-driven offices for civil filings (Prothonotary), criminal
filings (Clerk of Courts), real estate filings (Recorder of Deeds) and wills
and estates (Register of Wills) could be combined into one court-based
administrative operation.
The new Department of Court Records would be organized in
accordance with best record keeping practices and would save money by eliminating
overlapping expenditures in each of the existing operations. The small elected row office fiefdoms are
anything but efficient. Appropriate
audit controls would eliminate fiascoes like the recent unexplained missing large
deposits in the Clerk of Court’s office.
Second,
Washington County could replace the elected office of Coroner with an appointed
Medical Examiner who would be an experienced pathologist. At a minimum, Medical
Examiners have completed an anatomic pathology residency and a forensic
pathology fellowship.
Third, a county home rule charter would provide the opportunity
to replace the three-commissioner system authorized by state law with a single elected
chief executive. Under this model,
adopted by Allegheny County and others, a county-wide counsel would also be
elected to work with the executive in conducting county business. The executive would be a single voice and the
counsel would reflect the very different needs and priorities of Washington
County’s diverse voters.
The Romans taught us in 60 BC that a three party triumvirate,
similar to our commissioners, was no way to run a Republic. There was little that Caesar, Pompey and
Crassus could agree on and much finger pointing when things did not go
according to plan. The experiment degenerated
into a dictatorship.
When our forefathers considered how to organize the federal executive
branch in the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton carried the day in Federalist
No.70 “The Executive Department Further Considered.” He wrote: “Energy arises from the proceedings
of a single person characterized by decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch,
while safety arises from the unitary executive’s unconcealed accountability to
the people.” Washington County voters
are entitled to vote for a single executive who alone is answerable for his/her
actions.
In addition to the
above, home rule would make Washington County less dependent on state
government in other respects. We would have greater control in addressing: a) economic development needs; b) the demands
on county government for local services; and c) such control would permit rapid
response to address unique problems without waiting for Harrisburg to take
action.
The Pennsylvania counties that have adopted home rule have
taken local control of their futures. It
is time for Washington County to join them.
No comments:
Post a Comment