close

OP-ED: County home rule in the age of COVID-19

5 min read
article image -

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 50 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. For a variety of reasons, including local public health, now is the time to revisit home rule in Washington County.

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 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, racetrack and discount shopping mall. It is a modern industrial county at the center of the Marcellus Shale industry. All of the above have been economically impacted by the worst public health crisis in our lifetimes.

Clearly, the cookie-cutter model for county government, mandated by Harrisburg, does not fit Washington County’s changing profile. Moreover, the public health issues raised by the recent pandemic make it clear that there may be times when the political decisions of future commonwealth governors or the state Legislature do not align with the health and safety of county citizens.

The often-expressed 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 Pennsylvania home rule counties enjoy a greater level of government services yet do not pay higher taxes than the residents of non-home rule counties.”

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 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 smaller operations. 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 countywide council would also be elected to work with the executive in conducting county business. The executive would be a single voice and the council would reflect the very different needs and priorities of Washington County’s diverse communities.

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.” One executive is far superior to a three-headed commissioner system where finger pointing and blame shifting is encouraged by the form of government.

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, including public health issues like the pandemic.

When considering public health it would be important to frame the home rule provisions to permit Washington County to only take actions more restrictive than state procedures. This would guarantee no interference with state efforts to control public health emergencies by region as warranted by the course of the disease. Importantly, it would permit county officials to recognize “hot spots” detrimental to public health within the county and to postpone the lifting of controls. County officials are best positioned to make informed decisions with our local public health and emergency management teams.

The Pennsylvania counties that have adopted home rule have taken local control of their futures. It is time for Washington County to join them for the governmental, financial and public health benefits it would provide.

Gary Stout is a Washington attorney.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today