Luzerne County voters will approve or reject a referendum involving insider stock trading in the Nov. 3 general election.
If the citizen-initiated ballot question passes, it would amend the county’s home rule charter to require the county to:
• Prohibit county government elected officials and employees from using nonpublic information obtained through their county service to engage in individual stock trades or prediction market bets.
• Release an annual report of ethics complaints and stock trades involving county, state, and federal elected officials who represent the county.
Many county workers have expressed puzzlement over the need for a local ban because they can’t recall any instances where their jobs and posts exposed them to nonpublic intel on seismic national and world developments that could give them an inside track on stock trading.
Action Together NEPA, which organized the citizen petition signature effort to effectuate the referendum, said the local action would serve as a “model for transparency and integrity” as efforts to pass federal bans on congressional stock trading have repeatedly stalled.
Alisha Hoffman-Mirilovich, Action Together executive director, has said in a release the more than 23,000 petition signatures seeking the county referendum are a “direct rebuke of the status quo.”
“Voters in our community have watched, outraged, as officials prioritize personal stock portfolios over the common good. People are sick of the corruption and the conflicts of interest,” Hoffman-Mirilovich said in the release.
Rick Morelli, County Election Board vice chairman, said he wants to make it clear this county referendum would not prohibit state or federal elected officials from insider trading because the county has no authority over them. Morelli said he believes clarification is warranted because state and federal officials are mentioned in the second part of the ballot question dealing with the annual report.
During an August Election Board meeting, Morelli also repeatedly criticized the referendum’s lack of specificity on which state and federal officials must be included in the annual report because they are “representing the county.”
While it’s apparent it would cover state and federal legislators with districts that partially or fully fall within the county, Morelli questioned if it must include others, such as statewide and national elected officials.
He also questioned what stock transactions must be documented in the county report and what county resources would be needed to research and compile the report.
Hoffman-Mirilovich told county election officials at the August meeting the annual report would be based on publicly available information that already must be disclosed by elected officials. The county ethics commission would have to prepare a “compiler report” of this information and post it on the county website, she said.
Implementation of the new requirements would be guided by home rule charter wording changes that were provided to voters when they signed the referendum petition, according to the insider trading ballot question campaign.
The revisions would be in the charter article governing the county ethics code, which is adopted by County Council.
In sections listing prohibitions, it would add wording barring those involved in county government from insider trading.
Within four months of the amendment effective date, the county manager would have to submit proposed county ethics code amendments to County Council that are “consistent with the provisions, spirit, and purpose” of the charter and amendment.
It also addresses the annual reports that the county ethics commission must produce for the council and county manager, saying the reports must include:
• All ethics complaints made against elected state and federal officials who represent citizens of the county to relevant regulatory bodies, including all relevant information, findings, and conclusions. This shall not be construed to require the disclosure of privileged information.
• A summary of individual stock trades by volume made by county, state, and federal elected officials who represent citizens of the county based on publicly available information.
• Recommendations regarding changes to the county ethics code to regulate emerging unethical practices or ones that are not sufficiently regulated.
The proposed charter amendment was intentionally designed to give County Council “discretion to craft language that would comply with the prohibition,” Attorney Timothy J. Ford, of Dilworth Paxson LLP in Philadelphia, said during the August meeting.
“We’re giving room for County Council to decide how they want to do that. So we’re not trying to tell everyone how to do their jobs and leave room for policymaking,” Ford said on behalf of the referendum petition group.
Based on Ford’s explanation, Gene Molino, county assistant solicitor, said the question of which state and federal officials must be included in the annual report could be discussed and decided by County Council if the charter amendment passes.
The county ethics code covers all county government employees, elective county officials, members, and employees of county authorities, boards, and commissions.
This is the first time citizens have placed a proposed home rule charter amendment on the ballot for voter consideration. Since the county charter took effect in 2012, only the County Council has placed charter amendments on the ballot.
Action Together issued an announcement last week that its recent poll of likely voters found strong bipartisan support for the insider trading charter ban in this county and one also on the ballot in neighboring home rule Lackawanna County.
Hoffman-Mirilovich said tens of thousands of voters signed the petition in both counties for a “chance to say clearly that public trust comes before personal profit.”
“This poll shows that voters across party lines want stronger ethics rules,” she said in the release.
County Manager Romilda Crocamo said the county administration will “fully and promptly” carry out the directive if voters approve the charter amendment.
“Public trust in county government is earned through conduct, not slogans. If this amendment passes, Luzerne County will implement it with the same seriousness we bring to every obligation under the charter,” Crocamo said.
As a side note, this effort is unrelated to another citizen-initiated petition seeking a referendum on the 2027 primary election ballot asking voters if they want to repeal a council majority-adopted county anti-discrimination ordinance.