Luzerne County DA details home rule charter concerns

Luzerne County District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce extensively outlined a series of county home rule charter legal issues and concerns Tuesday as requested by the seven-citizen Government Study Commission.

The charter’s three-term limit was among his objections, with Sanguedolce asking whether a change in district attorneys should be determined by voters or dictated by a charter.

The charter also treats appointed and elected partial terms the same as full elected four-year terms in defining the limit, which shaved more than four years off the maximum Sanguedolce could serve as the county’s chief law enforcement officer.

Sanguedolce was initially appointed and then elected to partial terms after his predecessor, Stefanie Salavantis, resigned from the seat to run for county judge. He was re-elected to a four-year term last November.

Resign to run

Sanguedolce also cited legal issues with a charter prohibition stating the DA must resign from office before filing an election nomination petition or becoming a candidate for a different elective public office.

This prohibition came up in 2021 when a council majority initially moved to remove Salavantis as DA based on her filing of a nomination petition to run for judge.

Salavantis, who is now a county judge, had said she was not required to step down under state law, which she asserted supersedes the county charter. When council forced the issue, she filed an action in county court arguing council has no legal authority to remove an elected DA or select a successor as stated in the charter.

Council ended up withdrawing its vacancy declaration and accepting Salavantis’ subsequent resignation, and her litigation was withdrawn.

Sanguedolce told the commission Tuesday there are only three ways under state law that a DA can be removed — by the governor with two-thirds of the Senate, a quo warranto action requiring a full trial or impeachment.

“So there’s no circumstance where a majority of council can vacate a seat by a vote,” he said, noting Supreme Court rulings have held that home rule charters cannot supersede state law pertaining to the DA’s Office.

Post-office ban

The DA also contested the legality of a charter prohibition barring a DA — for a period of one year after leaving office — from being employed or compensated by any individual or business that served as a contractor to the county or a county authority/board/commission during the DA’s tenure.

He gave an imaginary example of a former DA being barred from handling private litigation shortly after leaving office due to a tenuous link to a county vending machine supplier.

“What is the consequence or remedy for the county? I assume to file an injunction to stop the representation. Does the county have any authority over someone who does not have any relationship with the county anymore?” he asked.

He also suggested the commission remove charter references to DA powers and duties because they are already set by state law and can’t be expanded or restricted by a charter.

Ethics code

Sanguedolce also brought up a series of flaws with the council-adopted ethics code that must be policed by the DA and other ethics commission members.

The code needs a “complete overhaul,” he said.

Sanguedolce emphasized his critique is no reflection on the charter drafters who created a new government from scratch.

His report was heavy with legal citations that the DA said were largely meant to provide further explanation for a solicitor the commission plans to hire to assist with its work.

The commission will have nine months to report findings and recommendations and another nine months if it is opting to prepare and submit changes to the charter, which took effect in 2012. An extra two months is allowable if the commission is recommending electing council by district instead of at large.

Voters must ultimately approve any commission recommendation for it to take effect.

Offering his personal opinion based largely on public feedback, Sanguedolce said he believes 11 county council members is excessive and that council members should be elected by district.