Luzerne County Council likely won’t proceed with creating a commission to enforce the county’s new anti-discrimination ordinance as planned because citizens have collected more than enough signatures for a repeal referendum, council Chairman Jimmy Sabatino said Wednesday.
Council discussed the proposed commission creation during Tuesday’s work session and made plans to revisit the subject at the next work session Aug. 25.
However, Sabatino he expects the citizen-initiated referendum will be placed on the 2027 primary election ballot, leaving the ordinance’s fate up to voters.
“I’m not going to use precious time we have before the budget season talking about a commission for an ordinance that we can’t enact,” Sabatino said.
Sabatino said he will resume discussion about the commission in the unlikely event that the referendum fails to proceed to the primary ballot.
Citizens turned in 15,395 voter signatures on Monday, which is 3,780 over the requirement, said group organizer Walter Griffith.
Council Clerk Sharon Lawrence has up to 20 days to notify petition circulators how many signatures she has accepted based on a review of names and addresses.
That determination triggers a 10-day signature challenge period. The Luzerne County Election Board has determined it will only adjudicate challenges if the number of contested signatures could bring the petition below the required 11,615-signature threshold. The election board’s decision can be appealed to county court.
If the referendum petition is “finally determined to be sufficient,” County Council must reconsider the ordinance within 30 days, the county’s home rule charter says. The referendum must go on the primary ballot if council fails to repeal the ordinance.
Sabatino said Wednesday he does not believe a majority will vote to repeal the ordinance.
Tuesday’s work session discussion focused on the proposed creation of a 13-citizen, council-appointed commission that would be vested with the authority to administer and enforce the ordinance. The proposal said the commission must receive “sufficient administrative and legal support” from the county Human Resources Department and Office of Law to carry out its powers and duties, including assistance with the intake of discrimination complaints and investigation of filed complaints. The commission would have the authority to retain outside legal counsel if a complaint is filed against the county.
Chief County Solicitor Harry W. Skene sent council a memo before the meeting expressing concerns about the proposal, including costs and who would handle work. Expectations about expenses and complaint numbers have been made based on experiences with commissions in other counties, but Skene told council, “No other county in this state is Luzerne County except for Luzerne County.”
Councilwoman Joanna Bryn Smith, an ordinance advocate, said the successful implementation of commissions in other counties is evidence one can be implemented here without straining the budget or causing problems.
“I think there’s a lot of misinformation about this, and there’s a lot of people who are just worried because this is new, and new is scary sometimes. Change is scary sometimes. That’s OK, but let’s not make fear the enemy of progress, and let’s not make things bigger than they need to be,” Bryn Smith said.
Based on assertions complaint filers will abuse the process, which she does not believe would occur, Bryn Smith proposed adding this wording to the proposed commission procedures:
“Upon commencement of any hearing of the commission, the chair of the commission must inform any testifying witness that their testimony to the commission is subject to penalty of perjury.”
Bryn Smith also asked if her colleagues want to set parameters on citizen commission appointments, as they do with some county boards.
Sabatino said he wants to limit the allowable number of commission members belonging to the same political party.
Council members Harry Haas and John Lombardo said they also want discussion on a recent communication from the county administration about the potential impact of a commission on the county’s insurance costs.