Recommended Position to the Republican Committee of Lancaster County by the RCLC Internal Education Committee

1. Recommended Position to theRepublican Committee of Lancaster Countyby the RCLC Internal Education Committee on the Lancaster County Government Study Commission FINAL REPORT and PROPOSED LANCASTER COUNTY HOME RULE CHARTER As published May 6, 2008 Slide 1

2. PA Constitution: Article IXLocal Government Home Rule Section 2. Municipalities shall have the right and power to frame and adopt home rule charters. Adoption, amendment or repeal of a home rule charter shall be by referendum. The General Assembly shall provide the procedure by which a home rule charter may be framed and its adoption, amendment or repeal presented to these electors. If the General Assembly does not so provide, a home rule charter or a procedure for framing and presenting a home rule charter may presented to the electors by initiative or by the governing body of the municipality. A municipality which has a home rule charter may exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this Constitution, by its home rule charteror by the General Assembly at any time. Slide 2

3. The Law of Unintended Consequences • Adoption of the Home Rule Charter does not provide citizens with a specific form of government upon which they can rely. • It opens the door for Lancaster County to throw off the constraints and protections that citizens currently have under state law • Opens the door to further changes that are not now possible • Once adopted, all former constraints of state law (e.g. county code) are gone • Sets up a permanent system to allow changes every 5 or 10 years1 • Protections and restraints [such as how much you can be taxed] will be gone. • Significant aspects are still undefined: • Administrative Code with thousands of details • Personnel code, Accountability, Conduct & Ethics Code • The draft Charter is simply the starting point; A blank check to a few in county government: “Just trust us” Slide 3 1Section 9.12 County Government Review Commission

4. Some Positive Aspects of Proposed Home Rule Charter • 5 Commissioners • Multi-year budgets • Bolsters qualifications for certain offices These are potentially achievable under the CURRENT structure of county government Slide 4

5. “Separation of Powers” is Problematic • Claimed intent: Separate Legislative and Administrative “branches” of county government PROPOSED STRUCTURE Respon-sibilities Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner 10-20% Legislative Commissioner Commissioner CURRENT STRUCTURE 80-90% Administra-tive 4 of 5 to Hire 4 of 5 to Fire Commissioner Commissioner Appoint County Administrator Commissioner Slide 5

6. “Separation of Powers” Problematic • Result is no separation of power • Administrator beholden to commissioners, not voters • 80-90% of power concentrated in oneunelected individual • Cannot be fired by the voters at an election • 10-20% of responsibility spread to five full-time commissioners • Board of Commissioners bound by a policy of non-interference with the chief administrator1. • Turns current structure on its head. • Controlling just two of five commissioners controls all of county government2 1Section 2.08 Non-Interference with Executive Branch 2Section 2.07 Powers and Duties, paragraph 5 Slide 6

7. Charter maintains Mandatory Minimum Slot • Each political party may nominate no more than two persons to the Board of Commissioners at any election1 • 1 of 5 guaranteed to be a minority candidate in years where 3 commissioners are elected • A person without electoral authority [without winning a majority of votes] gets to share in governing the county. • Effectively a quota system 1Section 2.04 Election and Term, paragraph c. Slide 7

8. Elected Officials won’t be answerable to the voters • Currently the District Attorney, Controller, etc. are independent officials, answerable to the people. • Under the proposed Home Rule charter, a super-majority of the commissioners can vote to oust them for “lack of qualifications” or “failure to perform duties”1 instituting a powerful intimidation factor. • Can overrule the voters [except for the D.A. position2] • Even an individual commissioner can be ousted by his/her fellow commissioners3 • If the DA launches an investigation of county wrongdoing, or the Controller questions overspending, four commissioners could toss either out of office. • Adds bureaucrats in place of elected officials who are motivated to innovation 1Section 4.07 Forfeiture of Office 2Proposed by GSC on July 8, 2008 3Section 2.22 Forfeiture of Office Slide 8

9. Board of Commissioners would seize power over Authorities 2 • Men and women who serve on county authorities would serve at the pleasure of the commissioners1 • No longer independent • Subject to political whims of the moment. • Hospital, Redevelopment, Airport, Transportation, Sewer & Water Authorities, among others [approx 24 such authorities] • Shifts control of huge amounts of money/bonds to Administrator, needing only two Commissioners for protection • Much money to be made in corrupt hands • Makings of a political spoils system embedded in the Home Rule Charter. 1Section 8.03 Appointments, paragraph a. “or removed by the Board of Commissioners” 2Proposed change as of July 8, 2008 Slide 9

10. Adds a new layer of bureaucracy • Elected Controller is currently our county financial watchdog; A well-tested system. • New Office of Management and Budget under the County Administrator1 • Duplicates roles and responsibilities • What would make them independent? • Further loss of balance of power • Removed from responsibility to the voters • Commissioners in charge of their own financial monitoring; Further loss of independent checks and balances 1Section 3.03 Office of Management and Budget Slide 10

11. Further seizure of powers • Board of Commissioners and agency heads would have power to issue subpoenas without any oversight1 • Overreaching police power • Huge potential for abuse • “Power to adopt any standard code of technical regulations”2 • e.g. electric, plumbing and other building codes • What’s the intent for this charter provision? • Mandates participation by local municipal governments in quarterly county conferences • Declaration of emergencies [flood, etc.], • Chair of the Commissioners can declare unilaterally • Dept of Emergency Mgmt likely under the County Administrator, but Charter is silent on his power 1Section 2.07 Powers and Duties, paragraph 7 and Section 9.01 Subpoena Power 2Section 2.21 Codes of Technical Regulations 3Section 2.17 Emergency Ordinances Slide 11

12. Board of Elections controlled by minority party1 2 Republicans 2 Democrats 1 additional member who is not a registered Republican or Democrat May not be someone who is active in electoral process.2 CONSEQUENCES: • The non-Republican / non-Democrat member gains all the power • Puts elections in unknowledgeable hands • Open to all sorts of abuse and manipulation of the voting process 1Section 8.08 Board of Elections 2Section 8.05 Prohibitions, paragraph a. Slide 12

13. Unintended Consequences of Charter’s Fiscal Policies • Higher costs in borrowing as lenders cannot be certain if borrowing will be approved via the referendum process • Interest rates based on degree of risk • Proposed charter fails to permit the County Treasurer to invest funds • Removes one of the primary responsibilities of the Treasurer Slide 13

14. Proposed Home Rule Charter still fluid • 18 months of work and a “Final Report” • Yet, very significant last-minute changes under consideration • The Government Study Commission’s solicitor has identified an impermissible overreaching of power by the proposed charter that the commission has ignored. • If the proposed Home Rule charter was so well developed and worthy of voter support, why are major structural changes still being considered? 1 1Proposed change as of July 8, 2008 Slide 14

15. Resolution Option #1 for the RCLCRESOLUTION EVALUATING the SOUNDNESS and PRUDENCE of the HOME RULE CHARTER PROPOSAL by the LANCASTER CO. GOVERNMENT STUDY COMMISSION WHEREAS, the Government Study Commission has given little deliberative consideration as to how improvements could be made within the current structure of county government with its inherent restraints and protections for the electorate; and WHEREAS, the Government Study Commission did not consider why the current county structure should be abolished in a wholesale manner; and WHEREAS, the proposed Home Rule charter contravenes the prudent Republican principle of limited government and restraints on governmental powers; and Continued next slide… Slide 15

16. Resolution Option #1(continued) WHEREAS, a new executive branch of government would be created with extensive power governing 80-90 percent of county government responsibilities, governed initially by literally authoritarian fiat and subsequently by a very extensive and comprehensive [but yet nonexistent] code of regulations, and yet be wholly unelected and non-responsible directly to the public; and WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter limits the ability of citizens to influence the daily activities of county government that most directly impact them; and WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter provides for the adoption of powers that encourage conflict, disunity and mischief, such as significantly expanded subpoena powers without due oversight, mandated “non-interference,”and power to adopt “codes of technical regulations”; and Continued next slide… Slide 16

17. Resolution Option #1(continued) WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter allows for the intimidation and arbitrary removal of elected officials contrary to our elected system of government; and WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter establishes a new, duplicative layer of government bureaucracy; and WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter wreaks havoc with the long-established balances of governmental powers, opening county government to forms of political mischief, manipulation, abuse and bossism to which the Government Study Commission seemed unaware; and WHEREAS, the bulk of the critical details of how county government will function will be unveiled only afterthe proposed home rule charter is adopted; and Continued next slide… Slide 17

18. Resolution Option #1(continued) WHEREAS, the proposed home rule charter provides the framework for minority parties’ control of functions of government, contrary to our established electoral system; now Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the Republican Committee of Lancaster County, convened on this tenth of July 2008, holds that those repercussions expected to occur from the myriad of unintended consequences intrinsic in the proposed home rule charter for an untested and unproven county government, portends disharmony, disunity, instability and conflict within county government; and be it further Continued next slide… Slide 18

19. Resolution Option #1(continued) RESOLVED, that the Republican Committee of Lancaster County concludes the proposed home rule charter will deform rather than reform county government; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Republican Committee of Lancaster County deems the Government Study Commission’s proposed home rule charter and a number of its concepts as being extensively and fatally flawed; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Republican Committee of Lancaster County is constrained to reject this faulty and very unsound home rule charter proposal, and encourages its resounding rejection by voters at the ensuing general election in November 2008. Slide 19