Warren County’s Impending Government Crisis

The unprecedented choice of Warren County voters: Will we elect part-time commissioners?

In the current race for county commissioner in Warren County, Pennsylvania, two candidates, if elected, will keep their full-time jobs, and will perform their commissioner duties part-time.

If one or both of these candidates are elected, it will create an administrative crisis in county government, not because of who the candidates are or who employs them, but because this county cannot be adequately managed by part-time county commissioners.

According to research conducted by a Warren citizen, Barb Lucia, in the history of the county examined so far reaching back about eighty years, keeping a full-time salaried job while simultaneously serving as Warren County commissioner is unprecedented.

Many former commissioners were self-employed—including farmers, a veterinarian, and small business operators. But all of these former commissioners, so far as is known, were careful to restructure their commitments at their own personal expense so they could perform their public duties full-time. In fact, it is likely these former commissioners sacrificed financially so they could assume the duties of commissioner. Clearly, that is the kind of civic duty deserving of our respect and gratitude. But it is a species of civic duty that may be on the verge of extinction.

Now, two candidates for county commissioner, Republican Tricia Durbin and Democrat Paul Giannini, both plan to treat the commissioner position as a part-time job—one that pays $57,178 per year plus full benefits.

Note: In Warren County, the average person earns $39,973, and the average teacher salary is $44,610. Supervisors of second class townships earn between $1,875 to $5,000 per year. Warren County commissioners receive an annual salary of $57,178, plus a generous benefit package, including health insurance, life insurance, a retirement fund, even dental insurance. 

We must not blame the candidates alone for the decision to run as part-timers. The decision must also have had the support of the candidates’ political parties, as well as the support of their “running mates” (current Commissioners Jeff Eggleston and Ben Kafferlin). It is rather difficult to imagine that the decision to run part-timers was made without debate within each party. Let’s hope someone raised the red warning flags and argued against the idea. But if not, what does that say about the dedication to fiscal responsibility within both parties? Do they really assume taxpayers are ready for such consequential and disruptive change?

What happens if voters choose a part-time commissioner

If the voters select Ms. Durbin or Mr. Giannini (or both), the result will be an historic shift in the county from full-time to part-time commissioners, a shift that will create voter dissension long into the future.

It is also likely that once we allow even one part-time commissioner, a domino effect will begin causing any elected full-time commissioner(s) to reassess a commitment to full-time service.

So if a part-timer is elected and either Commissioners Eggleston or Kafferlin retain their position, how long will it take them to reconsider their full-time commitment? How long will they resist being wooed away into lucrative full-time private-sector positions, or into pursuing self-employment full-time, all while retaining their commissioner pay and benefits?

Indeed, a private-sector employer might be especially interested in hiring full-time commissioners into full-time positions, since the employer will not need to pay for benefits because those are already paid by the taxpayer.

[Note: Pursuing self-employment while serving as a part-time commissioner comes with its own ethical issue, because the county-provided health and dental care benefits will save the self-employed commissioner the cost of purchasing private health insurance, effectively subsidizing that commissioner’s business.]

More importantly, once part-time commissioners become the norm, only civic-minded saints, the independently wealthy, or retirees will consider serving full-time as commissioner. Other future candidates will simply plan to keep their current full-time day jobs. And each one of those jobs will probably be loaded with potential conflicts of interest that voters will have to tease out during every future election and during every future term of office … and probably during every future vote.

What a can of worms!

If this happens, how long will it take before the position of commissioner will be routinely sought by opportunists simply for the supplementary income and benefits the position provides?

Realistically, if serving part-time is attempted by one of the winners of next Tuesday’s election, some significant percentage of the electorate will not be pleased. And that will lead to the various ways citizens have of expressing their dissatisfaction—through social media posts, letters to the editor, rants to neighbors, and possibly by vocalizing their complaints in commissioner meetings. It is certainly imaginable that some meetings may be dominated by the topic. Do we really want to invite that level of discord?

From the perspective of the taxpayer and those who prefer a fully functional board of supervisors, the upshot of filling one or more positions as part-time will be a gift to political adversaries, since the issue will be used continuously and effectively to discredit the part-timer(s). Such political clashes may even descend into formal complaints. How much time and taxpayer funding will those potential political, ethical, and possibly even legal squabbles cost over the coming years? And how much will they distract from conducting the county’s critical business?

Worse, while voter friction may get hot (especially if the part-time commissioner is from the “other” party), the more concerning issue is one of public trust and confidence. Will citizens trust elected officials who have divided loyalties between private employment and public duties? Will they trust the part-timer as much as the full-time commissioner? Or will voters just become even more cynical about local government and local politicians?

One important consequence of a part-time commissioner receiving full-time pay and benefits is how that will affect the morale of county employees. Will county employees (and their union) bristle against perceived inequity? Surely, that could make future meetings of the salary board more spirited (assuming the part-time commissioners can break away from their full-time jobs to attend).

Once the full-time standard is broken, it may never be restored, leaving Warren County citizens permanently stuck with overpaid part-time commissioners. If that happens, how will commissioners serve as anything other than figureheads, like British royals. Who among the part-timers will actually have the time to manage the county?

Eventually, will we have to hire a county manager?

With the election only days away, what can voters do?

So what do we voters do now, less than a week before the election, to address this issue?

Perhaps, prior to the election, the part-timer candidates will provide some acceptable clarification of how they plan to balance their public and private schedules. However, it will be insufficient that a part-timer attempts to assuage voters by agreeing to work in the early morning hours, or after hours, or on weekends, because such hours do not allow the kind of access citizens or county employees must have? So any announced balancing-act plans must be more substantial.

Agreeing to defer all or part of the commissioner salary or benefits would also be insufficient, because it does not address the core issue, which is that Warren County needs full-time commissioners to effectively tackle the formidable social, economic, and environmental issues that confront us.

The only solution that fully addresses the problem is for candidates Durbin and Giannini to publicly declare that, if elected, they will fill the position full-time and be available during normal county work hours.

Our Warren County commissioners are the three most important elected offices in the county—possibly the three most important jobs in the county. Will we elect part-timers whose civic duties will be conducted as a side job and limited to odd hours?

We taxpayers pay for dedicated, full-time commissioners. We should not settle for less.

Author: John Able

John is a retired Forest Service employee. He worked as a wildland firefighter, public affairs officer, and technical writer. He lives with his family along a left-bank tributary of Conewango Creek in rural Warren County, Pennsylvania.

2 thoughts on “Warren County’s Impending Government Crisis”

  1. My grandfather, L.L. Johnson, was a full-time Warren County Commissioner for six (6) terms. He gave up his small business to serve all the people of Warren County with integrity, distinction and a humble pride. He would be appalled at the mere thought that any candidate for that high office would think they could do right by County resident taxpayers on any less than full-time daily basis.

  2. The fact that the WTO will not publish any letters to the editor about this important issue (citing political leanings) shows that the WTO itself is leaning politically in favor of keeping the public uninformed on this issue, which is a blatant dereliction of duty on the part of the WTO editors to not allow any discussion of this fact. As the writers of these articles prove (John & Barb), this is NOT partisan politics as the WTO tried to state, since the authors cited two candidates from both major political parties. There was zero political partisanship here. This is why we have The Allegheny Voice, so REAL NEWS can get out to the people of the Conewango-Allegheny Watershed. In fact, one could go so far as to state that the WTO is trying to INFLUENCE an election by OMITTING FACTS from its readership.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.