Boldly-worded statement from three study commission members prompts strong response

Three members of Luzerne County’s seven-citizen Government Study Commission issued a boldly-worded statement Wednesday that prompted a strong response from some county officials and fellow commission members.

The three — Vito Malacari, commission vice chair; Cindy Malkemes, treasurer; and Mark Shaffer — are contesting the format for commission bill payments.

Council unanimously agreed to introduce a budget ordinance Tuesday that would allocate $75,000 from the reserve fund that commission requested to cover 2024 expenditures, with a public hearing and final vote necessary at a future meeting for the allocation to take effect.

Wednesday’s statement from the three said council’s decision to deny the creation of an independent bank account for commission operations is “a move that reeks of the very corruption the voters sought to combat when they elected this commission.”

But Commission member Stephen J. Urban, a former county councilman, said Wednesday he is fine with the account structure planned by council because the allocation will be in an isolated county budget category to allow for fiscal tracking. As long as the commission stays within budget, the county administration must issue payments for all bills publicly approved by the commission, he said.

“We have larger issues than who is going to be cutting checks for vendors. We have a home rule charter to fix,” Urban said.

Matthew Mitchell, another commission member and prior county councilman, said the statement from the three, in his personal opinion, “is bizarre and reeks of an attempt to politicize an apolitical commission.”

“Throwing around baseless accusations of corruption towards county employees and officials is counterproductive to the work we’re trying to accomplish for the people of Luzerne County,” Mitchell said. “We’ve seen the damage that can be done when elected officials spread misinformation without considering the consequences.”

Mitchell also said placing funds “in the hands of only a couple of people can create an environment of distrust and has the potential for mismanagement due to a lack of oversight.”

He added: “If there is real corruption happening, the proof should be reported to the authorities.”

County Manager Romilda Crocamo said she is “a bit befuddled as to the hostility in the statements made by Commission members Malacari, Malkemes and Shaffer.”

The administration has been “extremely cooperative and helpful” with the commission, she said. Crocamo cited the law division’s review of requests for qualifications seeking a commission attorney, consultant and clerk. The budget/finance division head also responded to the commission treasurer’s request for budget drafting help when the treasurer “admittedly had no prior experience in developing a budget,” she said. The administration also granted commission members access to the courthouse for meetings and provided support staff from the Information Technology and Sheriff Departments, she said.

“Clearly, to hand over a check with no accounting within the county financial system would not be fiscally responsible from the county’s perspective,” Crocamo wrote. “The purpose of utilizing a department and multiple line items in the budget is to account for expenses of the commission and report monthly to the council and the public, as is the case with all other funds the county is responsible for managing.”

She added the administration is “looking forward to a continued cooperative and productive relationship” with the commission.

Council Chairman John Lombardo said council placed the study commission question on the April primary ballot out of a desire to fix the charter.

He described the statement from three members as “extremely unsettling” and “inexplicable,” noting the four other study commission members “have no issue” with the accounting format. Lombardo also expressed concerns that deviation from the county’s accounting policy could prompt a negative finding in a future county audit. He also said past county study commissions processed bills through the county accounting system.

“Nobody on council or the administration has said — privately, publicly or otherwise — that they are trying to interfere in any way with what the Government Study Commission is doing,” Lombardo said.

The statement from Malacari, Malkemes and Shaffer said the study commission was established to “root out inefficiency, corruption, and cronyism from our county government.”

It asserted council is denying the commission “the ability to manage its own finances independently” and “perpetuating a culture of control and manipulation that has plagued our county for far too long.” The statement maintains efforts to “ensure transparent and independent governance are being thwarted by those in power.”

Individual commission members are “prepared to take legal action if necessary to secure its independence and fulfill its mandate to the people of Luzerne County,” it said.

The statement demands establishment of an independent bank account that lists bonded commission members and condemns council’s decision “as a direct threat to the integrity” of the commission’s work.

Authorized by county April 23 primary election voters, the commission will have nine months to report findings and recommendations and another nine months if it is opting to prepare and submit government changes. An extra two months is allowable if the commission is recommending electing council by district instead of at large.

Voter approval would be necessary for recommended changes to take effect.