Thursday, March 29, 2007
Sheriff’s Office: Spared by Court Ruling
If a Common Pleas Court decision from March 28, 2007 stands, voters in Allegheny County will not be able to decide whether to make the Sheriff’s office an appointed one until 2010. That’s because the ruling leans heavily on case law that interprets the provision that a change to the form of government can only happen after a five-year wait from to the previous change.
Here’s the language from the Pennsylvania Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans law: “the voters of any municipality (or county) which has adopted a home rule charter or an optional plan of government pursuant to this subpart may not vote on the question of changing the form of government until five years after the home rule charter or optional plan became effective”.
That language is clear. Adopt a charter, wait five years to let the government get established, and then voters can modify the government. The County has argued that position in this case. However, the judge noted “some sixteen years of appellate case law have made defendants’ position untenable”. Other court cases have interpreted the law as a five-year moratorium between all changes to the government, no matter how many years away from the inception of the charter they occurred.
The judge notes that since the law that created the charter for the County, the County Home Rule Charter, and the County Administrative Code all reference language identical to the section of the Home Rule and Optional Plans law, it cannot be interpreted differently.
Since voters went to the polls in 2005 to abolish and modify other row offices, the decision will only allow the next change to happen in 2010, per the interpretation of the language.
We think that the County has a good chance of winning a challenge to this ruling. To us, it is the case law that seems untenable and should not be allowed to negate the powers of voters in home rule counties and municipalities to alter their government as they see fit, after the initial five year adoption of home rule.
Here’s the language from the Pennsylvania Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans law: “the voters of any municipality (or county) which has adopted a home rule charter or an optional plan of government pursuant to this subpart may not vote on the question of changing the form of government until five years after the home rule charter or optional plan became effective”.
That language is clear. Adopt a charter, wait five years to let the government get established, and then voters can modify the government. The County has argued that position in this case. However, the judge noted “some sixteen years of appellate case law have made defendants’ position untenable”. Other court cases have interpreted the law as a five-year moratorium between all changes to the government, no matter how many years away from the inception of the charter they occurred.
The judge notes that since the law that created the charter for the County, the County Home Rule Charter, and the County Administrative Code all reference language identical to the section of the Home Rule and Optional Plans law, it cannot be interpreted differently.
Since voters went to the polls in 2005 to abolish and modify other row offices, the decision will only allow the next change to happen in 2010, per the interpretation of the language.
We think that the County has a good chance of winning a challenge to this ruling. To us, it is the case law that seems untenable and should not be allowed to negate the powers of voters in home rule counties and municipalities to alter their government as they see fit, after the initial five year adoption of home rule.
