Allegheny County Home Rule Charter Amendment

Submitted by B0bb3r7 t3_xzcp3i in pittsburgh

I was reviewing the sample ballot for this coming election. There's a referendum on a proposed County Charter amendment. The proposal is to repeal article III, subsection 6(b) which says:

>A County Council Member shall not be a candidate for nomination or election to any elected political office other than that of County Council without having first resigned from County Council.

The county charter isn't all that old. (Allegheny county's current form of government has only existed since 2000.) Does anyone recall why this requirement was included in the charter?

Edit: I finally found it. From a 2003 Post-Gazette article:

>The state Legislature inserted the requirement into the 1997 bill that authorized Allegheny County to draft a home rule charter. Legislators have acknowledged that the provision was written to discourage council members from running against them.
>
>"It had nothing to do with good government," said council President Rick Schwartz, D-Plum. "It was simply a protection for the state legislators."

Edit 2: I've invested too much time into this lol. The bill referenced in the Post-Gazette article became Act 12 of 1997. Section 3 amended Act 230 of 1953 to include the "resign to run" requirement in article XXXI-C, subsection 5-C (b).

38

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Yinzerman1992 t1_irmil3b wrote

This is how most home rule charter municipalities in allegheny county word their elected official positions. (Penn hills, monroeville, o'hara, Bethel park.) The idea is you dont want them to be campaigning while also serving their terms as elected officials.

I voted no. The whole idea is that county council (besides executive) is part time. They have a full time job and then like a couple of times a month they vote on things. Think of councilor nicholas futules. He runs a banquet center and that's his job and then he Is county council where he is paid part time. Only fitzgerald/the executive is full time. Their attention should be on county council and not other things and be part time.

league of women voter explanation

20

mistergrime t1_irmkj74 wrote

Replying to [deleted] (#63,118)

That’s not what it says. The provision would prohibit a sitting councilmember from being a candidate for a different office without resigning from council. Obviously if the councilmember wins, they’d resign their council seat. But it’s not unusual for a sitting officeholder to run for a different office, lose that election, and just continue being in the seat they already had.

6

ricksebak t1_irmvlce wrote

Replying to Yinzerman1992 (#63,049)

The fact that these jobs are part time is insane to me. The county has 1.2 million constituents and council has 13 district reps, which is roughly 92k constituents/district for a part time job. And a quick check of the PA-18 state house district (Innamorato’s) shows 66k constituents for that district, which is a full time job. Then each at-large member of county council represents the full population of 1.2 million constituents, which is one of the largest local legislative seats in the entire US.

14

New_Acanthaceae709 t1_irndclr wrote

Replying to Yinzerman1992 (#63,049)

Especially as it's a part-time position, I'm not sure why we wouldn't allow them to campaign while serving their terms.

I'm also not sure how the hell you can do the job well *and* be part time, which might be how Clairton continues to pollute the shit outta our city for less money in jobs than it costs us in healthcare.

10

B0bb3r7 OP t1_irnif3c wrote

So, now that I came across this 2003 article (edited into the original post), I'm suddenly agreeable to voting yes. If this really was a stunt by Harrisburg as a condition of home rule, it should be removed.

3

OcelotWolf t1_irpk1e3 wrote

Replying to Yinzerman1992 (#63,049)

> The whole idea is that county council (besides executive) is part time. They have a full time job and then like a couple of times a month they vote on things.

To me, this is a very strong argument for voting yes

6

B0bb3r7 OP t1_irulq6x wrote

Replying to PolyDipsoManiac (#74,999)

They don't receive a salary at all. Article III, subsection 7(a) says:

>County Council Members shall not receive a salary but may receive per-meeting stipends not to exceed in the aggregate $9,000 annually per Member. The aggregate stipend may by ordinance be increased by up to five percent every five years.

Assuming they've regularly passed ordinances for the maximum increase, they'd be approaching an $11k annual stipend.

3

PolyDipsoManiac t1_irw4la4 wrote

Replying to B0bb3r7 (#75,354)

Stipend, whoops. Yes, that’s not very much money. Given that state legislators making over 100 grand just didn’t want political competition I regret voting no, hah

3

B0bb3r7 OP t1_irykk60 wrote

Replying to PolyDipsoManiac (#77,716)

lol, I'm certain it'll come up for vote again.

I agree, the general assembly is loathsome scum. It'd be refreshing to see them actually work to keep their seat.

3

IGISB t1_is2dt90 wrote

Replying to OcelotWolf (#67,410)

They literally explained how little time the job requires from the council and still voted no? That does not make sense. I'm voting yes.

4

isthatwhathappened t1_is2eq5s wrote

Replying to IGISB (#88,567)

Why not? Don’t you find it strange that politicians essentially stop doing their job for large portions of time in order to essentially interview for a new job? It would be like if I took a leave of absence so that I could apply for a new job and expected my employer to continue paying me during that time. Look at how literally everything in DC or the statehouse stops during election time. If anything this rule should be applied to all politicians, not just county council.

1

IGISB t1_is2fskv wrote

Replying to isthatwhathappened (#88,606)

Not when the job requires them meeting twice a month to vote on things. Not all elected positions require that much time and attention. They all have full time jobs they do outside of this, as comments farther up mentioned.

3

isthatwhathappened t1_is2ra5b wrote

Replying to IGISB (#88,672)

Lol at the idea that the entire job is just showing up and voting.

But, fine, it’s like telling my employer for my side gig that I want to take leave and have them pay me while I interview for a new side gig.

Either way, it’s dumb that elected officials can run for office while currently sitting in office.

Not only that, but it creates conflicts of interest and opportunities for corruption. It just begs for quid pro quo: “support me in the next election bc if you do I’ll vote yes on the issue in front of me right now.”

0