Voters in Lackawanna County's primary election will have a multitude of options for restructuring county government.
In a decision that effectively places the broadest range of choices possible before the electorate, a three-judge county court panel ruled Friday that not one, not two, but five referendum questions related to county government will appear on the May 21 ballot.
President Judge Thomas Munley and Judges Terrence Nealon and Vito Geroulo cleared the way for voters to decide whether they want to establish a government study commission to investigate and possibly recommend adoption of a new form of government to replace the Board of Commissioners.
Most surprisingly, the panel decided a referendum approved by the commissioners to amend the existing Home Rule Charter to eliminate four elected row offices should be presented as four distinct questions.
Voters should have the opportunity to decide individually the fates of the offices of register of wills, recorder of deeds, clerk of judicial records and sheriff, the judges said.
"Such an important question should be phrased in a manner that will enable the electorate to grant individual consideration to each proposed change which could result in voters surrendering their long-standing ability to select their own county officers," the judges wrote.
The exhaustive, 69-page opinion and order by the judges, who are also acting as the county Board of Elections, swept away practically every objection raised over the past month to both the government study commission initiative and the row-office elimination proposal.
It is also expected to produce appeals.
By dismissing all the objections to the ordinance approved by the majority commissioners to put the row-office issue on the ballot, the court recognized the independent nature of home rule governments, said attorney Joseph O'Brien, who represents the county.
The administration, however, disagrees with splitting the row-office referendum into four questions and will consider an appeal to Commonwealth Court, he said.
"We think that is a decision that should be made by a legislative body, but they disagreed and we'll see," Mr. O'Brien said.
Frank Ruggiero, attorney for insurance executive Chuck Volpe, who spearheaded the petition drive to get the government study commission question on the ballot, called the ruling a "resounding victory."
"We had known all along we had followed the correct law and the correct procedure," he said.
However, he would not rule out an appeal aimed at blocking the row-office questions from the ballot.
"We are still reviewing the issues raised and determining what our next step is, if any," he said.
The government study referendum will ask voters whether a seven-member commission should be elected to study the county's existing form of government and possibly recommend changes.
The court ruling means the 39 candidates who have filed nominating papers to run for seats on the study commission will also appear on the primary election ballot.
In deciding to move forward with separate questions about the row offices, the court granted in part a petition filed by Scranton resident Joseph Pilchesky, who had requested that the proposed changes appear as distinct inquiries rather than a single question.
As proposed by the commissioners, the referendum does not permit voters to consider the individual merits of each row office but is instead presented as an "all or noting" proposition, the court said.
It found the Board of Elections, which has latitude under state law to shape of the wording of referendums, could sever the referendum into four discrete questions "without materially altering the original proposed question."
In a related matter, Commonwealth Court on Friday dismissed an appeal by Dickson City resident Andrea Benford that sought to vacate part of a previous county court decision regarding the validity of the petitions filed to get the study commission question on the ballot.
Contact the writer: dsingleton@timesshamrock.com