Home Rule Charter Review Commission

MINUTES OF THE TOWN OF GREENVILLE HOME RULE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AT THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Tuesday, April 1, 2025 at 6:30 pm 1. Call to Order: Commission Chair, Tracy Beil 2. Pledge of Allegiance: Mary Reames 3. Roll Call: Benjamin Beck Tracy Beil Patrick Eaton Mary Reames Joel Rinella Also Present: Jean Carr-Fisher, Chad Bromley, Lisa Hamill, Paul Hamill, Greg Butcher, Hal Johnson, Linda Oman, and Brian Shipley. Staff: Jasson Urey, Town Manager Rosalynn Reagle, Assistant Town Manager Amy Hollowell, Administrative Assistant Matt Breedlove, Director of Community Development, Code/Zoning Officer Media: Caleb Stright, Record-Argus Attorney: Peter Halesey (via Zoom audio) 4. Public Comments: 3 minute time limit, Agenda Items • No comments. 5. Approval of Minutes: A motion to approve the March 25, 2025 meeting minutes was made by Joel Rinella and seconded by Mary Reames. Motion carried 5-0. 6. Old Business: A. DISCUSS Administrations Recommendations document. • Mary Reames shared a working document regarding recommendations from the administration and from council. See attached. • Tracy Beil mentioned that anything we vote to change or add will be a recommendation that is made to council. Also it was noted that the mayor’s position is out of the scope of the review commission. Context was provided by a memorandum provided by Attorney Peter Halesey. There was discussion around the housekeeping items that were presented by Joel Rinella. There was discussion around the wording to add as a statement regarding exiting Act 47. There was discussion around updating gendered language in the document. • A MOTION was made to remove Article 3.10 by Mary Reames and seconded by Tracy Beil. Motion carried 5-0. • A MOTION was made to change the date from November 1 to October 1 in Article 6.2 by Joel Rinella and seconded by Patrick Eaton. Motion carried 5-0. • A MOTION was made to remove Article 3.6(6) by Mary Reames and seconded by Benjamin Beck. Motion carried 5-0. • A MOTION was made to remove Article 3.7 by Benjamin Beck and seconded by Mary Reames. Motion carried 5-0. • There was discussion around wording to be added to Article 3.6(b) referencing the State Constitution. A MOTION was made to update proposed language to Article 3.6(b) by Joel Rinella and seconded by Patrick Eaton. Motion carried 5-0. (b) Removal from Office. A council member may be removed from that office in accordance with Article VI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania: (1) by impeachment in the House of Representative and conviction in the Senate; • A MOTION was made to change the language of Article 3.12(c) by Mary Reames and seconded by Patrick Eaton. Motion carried 5-0. (c) Voting. Voting on all ordinances and resolutions shall be by roll call, with the ayes and nays recorded in the minutes. An ordinance or resolution shall be considered void and unenforceable if a roll call vote is not taken on the measure. Voting on procedural and other types of motions may be by voice vote, but must revert to a roll call vote with the ayes and nays recorded in the minutes, when a dissenting vote is cast by voice. • A MOTION was made to remove Article 3.17(c) by Mary Reames and seconded by Tracy Beil. Motion carried 5-0. B. DISCUSS with Attorney, Peter Halesey. • Peter Halesey provided a brief overview of the memorandum that was provided to commissioners. See attached. • Mary Reames asked about what the default for dates would be. There was discussion around dates being considered calendar dates and not business dates. • There was discussion around the question around reverting to Borough Code when something is not addressed in the Home Rule Charter. • A MOTION was made to change the language to Article 7.1 by Mary Reames and seconded by Tracy Beil. Motion carried 5-0. (a) Form. All contracts of the town involving sums in excess of ten thousand (10,000.00) dollars the “Written/Telephonic Bid” amount applicable to “Boroughs and Incorporated Towns”, contained in the Department of Labor’s annual “Consumer Price Index Adjustment of Base Amounts on Bids” for the current year, shall be in writing and shall be executed on behalf of the town by the Mayor or, in his absence, the Town Clerk. The Mayor shall also execute all contracts, regardless of amount, for the purchase, sale, leasing, or use of real estate. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the Manager shall execute contracts on behalf of the town involving sums of less than ten thousand (10,000.00) dollars the aforementioned “Written/Telephonic Bid” amount made pursuant to…. 7. Public Comments: • Brian Shipley – Thanked commissioners on their work and how productive they were in the meeting. 8. Commission Comments: • No comments 9. Adjournment: Having no other business, a motion was made to adjourn by Benjamin Beck and seconded by Mary Reames. The meeting adjourned at 7:37 pm. Respectfully submitted, Benjamin Beck Secretary April 1, 2025 ? Mayor/yes or no Working Document ​ ​ ​ ? calendar vs work day ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ? he/she/they Changes that we have voted on:​​ ​ ? Exiting Act 47 statement !. Change the name of Greenville back to the Borough of Greenville. 2. Remove Article 3 3.16 Codes of Technical Regulations Revisions: Article 3 3.10 Investigations Article 3 3.14 change public hearing to public meeting Article 6 6.2 change November 1 to October 1 Remove: Article 3 3.6(6) If an incumbent loses an election, he/she will not be eligible for appointment to a vacant council position for four years. . Article 3 3.7 Judge of Qualifications Article 3.16 Code of technical regulations Still in Question: Article 3 3.6 (b) add defined by the constitution Article 3 3.12 (c ) Voting Roll call or voice vote Article 3 3.13 Action requiring ordinances - doe it take an ordinance to establish alter or abolish a committee Article 3 17 ( c) Administrative code - by the final meeting in January adoptive an administrative code Article 4 4.4 Do we need to revise or clarify what is there? Article 6 10 (b) limitations when borrowing Article 6 6.14 Taxation Article 7 7.1 Clarify who executes and uses state bidding guideline and not specific numbers  MEMORANDUM TO: Town of Greenville Charter Review Commission CC: Jasson Urey FROM: Peter J. Halesey, Esquire DATE: March 31, 2025 RE: GRNVL 1049_27: Charter Review Commission Please allow this memorandum to serve as an analysis of the scope of Section 9.2 of the Town of Greenville’s (the “Town”) Home Rule Charter (the “Charter”). By way of brief background, my office was engaged to assist the Charter Review Commission (the “Review Commission”) in answering questions related to its work in reviewing the Charter pursuant to the provisions of Charter Section 9.2. In that capacity, a question arose as to the extent of the Review Commission’s authority to amend the terms of the Charter. To my understanding, certain members of the Review Commission interpreted Section 9.2 of the Charter to grant the Review Commission the authority to amend the Charter to the extent that the existing form of the Town’s government could be changed. Other members of the Review Commission interpreted Charter Section 9.2 to mean that the Review Commission’s authority only extended to amending the Charter within the existing form of government. As will be discussed in the instant memorandum, the language of Section 9.2 appears to conflict with the language of the Home Rule Charter and Optional Plans Law (the “Home Rule Law”) to the extent that Section 9.2 of the Charter creates an alternative method of amending the Charter by mandating that the Town’s governing body, in this case the Council, adopt the recommendations of the Review Commission, a procedure which is not provided for in the law. Section 9.2 of the Charter states as follows: In January of 2025 and each tenth year thereafter, five registered voters of the town shall be elected as members of the Charter Review Commission in the preceding November election. Members of the Commission shall not hold any other office or position of employment with the town. The Commission shall review the Charter and within six months after the appointment of its members the Charter Review Commission will adopt recommendations by a majority vote. Council shall submit any proposed amendments recommended by the commission to a vote of the people in the manner provided under this Charter and the state Constitution. Amendments shall be in the form provided by Council. {DocNo=01144807.1 } Regarding the first question, whether the Review Commission has the authority to amend the Charter to the extent that the existing form of government could be changed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court succinctly answered this question in the case of Pilchesky v. Lackawanna County, 88 A.3d 954 (Pa. 2014). Lackawanna County had enacted a home rule charter in 1977, and that charter provided for the establishment of the elected row offices of Sheriff, Clerk of Judicial Records, Recorder of Deeds, and Register of Wills. In 2013, the Lackawanna County Commissioners proposed an ordinance to place a referendum question on the ballot to amend the County’s home rule charter to abolish those offices as elected positions and reconstitute them as appointed positions. The ordinance further sought to change some of the powers and duties of the row offices. In deciding whether the Commissioners could place the referendum question of abolishing the elected positions on the ballot via ordinance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that “any modification of provisions concerning the “election of municipal officials” produces a separate form of government for the purposes of the Home Rule Law…the adoption of a new form of government is subject to the procedure of electing a government study commission and subsequent referendum outlined in Subchapter B. Id. at 966. The Court further found that “[t]he Commissioners…sought to make fundamental alterations in the form of government by transforming the office of Sheriff from an elected to an appointed position and abolishing three row offices which heretofore had been elected.” Id. at 967. “Pilchesky correctly highlights several interests served by employing a government study commission when the home rule municipality seeks to limit electoral choices.” Id. “Pilchesky asserts that election of a government study commission, generally composed of local residents, is “vital to due process and accountability.” Id. “The Commissioners are obligated to conduct public hearings and discussions and to consider the issues over an extended period of time, thereby permitting and encouraging broader public awareness and participation than in the ordinance-driven process.” Id. “Upon an application of well-settled principles of statutory construction, we find that in light of the plain language of the Home Rule Law and the considerations Pilchesky raises, the amendment proposed by the Commissioners constitutes a change in the form of government that may be accomplished only by following the procedure outlined in Subchapter B of the Home Rule Law which requires the election of a government study commission.” Id. The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court further spoke to this issue in the case of Rosato v. Slifko, 2014 WL 5095644 (Pa. Commw., Oct. 10, 2014). In that case, a resident of the City of Reading sought to amend the city’s home rule charter via the referendum process by submitting a petition to place a referendum question on the ballot to amend the city’s charter to provide for a Council/Manager form of government. Another city resident challenged the referendum petition and the Commonwealth Court found that the Court of Common Pleas correctly ruled that the referendum petition proposed a change in the form of government necessitating compliance with the Home Rule Law’s provisions for the election of a government study commission. As the Commonwealth Court found, “pursuant to the ruling in Pilchesky, the referendum seeks a fundamental change in the form of government that may be accomplished only by following the procedures in Subchapter B that call for the election of a government study commission.” Id. At *3. In addition, in a footnote, the Commonwealth Court noted that an appointed review commission could not suffice to serve as the elected commission required under the law (emphasis added). Id. at n.3. {DocNo=01144807.1 } Based on the above law, any attempt to change the Town’s form of government would require that the provisions of Subchapter B of the Home Rule Law be followed. As such, changing the form of the Town’s government is almost certainly outside the scope of the Review Commission’s authority. Regarding the second question, as to the Review Commission’s authority under Charter Section 9.2 to mandate the Council to pass an ordinance placing charter amendments on the ballot in the form of referendums, existing case law suggests that this would be impermissible under the Home Rule Law. Under the existing language of Section 9.2, the Review Commission, by majority vote, is to adopts recommendations which Council then shall “submit…to a vote of the people in the manner provided under this Charter,” in essence, amendment via ordinance and referendum. Subchapter C of the Home Rule Law is titled “Amendment of Existing Charter or Optional Plan.” Section 2941 of the Home Rule Law states “[t]he procedure for amending a home rule charter or optional plan of government shall be through the initiative procedure and referendum or ordinance of the governing body as provided for in this subpart.” 53 Pa. C.S.A. §2941(a)(emphasis added). Section 2942 of the Home Rule Law states that “[a] referendum on the question of amendment of a home rule charter or an optional plan of government may be initiated by petition of the electors or such a referendum may be initiated by an ordinance of the governing body.” 53 Pa. C.S.A. §2942 (emphasis added). Courts of this Commonwealth have held that “[e]ven with their expanded autonomy, home rule municipalities must act according to the parameters set by the legislature in the Home Rule Charter Law.” Norristown Fraternal Ord. of Police, Lodge 31 by Roden v. DeAngelis, 148 Pa. Commw.. 285, 292, 611 A.2d 322, 326 (1992)(citing County of Delaware v. Township of Middletown, 511 Pa. at 71, 511 A.2d at 814 (1986)). “Thus, the legislature did not intend to permit a home rule charter municipality to supersede state legislation.” Id. The tension between the language of Section 9.2 of the Charter and the provisions of the Home Rule Law occurs at the point where Section 9.2 mandates that Council “shall submit any proposed amendments recommended by the commission to a vote of the people.” In essence, the Charter language removes the power of amendment from the Council and gives it to the Review Commission, a mechanism not contemplated by the Home Rule Law, which identifies two specific avenues for amendment. In the event that the Council was in agreement with the Review Commission’s recommendations for amendment, there would be no issue, as Council would vote to pass an ordinance amending the Charter and placing the amendment referendum before the voters, which is in accordance with the law. Given the conflict between the Charter language and the Home Rule Law, in the event that the Council disagreed with the Review Commission’s proposed amendments, and the Review Commission attempted to force the Council to follow the Charter language and place the amendments before the voters via referendum, it is my opinion that the language at issue in Section 9.2 would most likely be declared invalid as it conflicts with the language of the Home Rule Law. {DocNo=01144807.1 } {DocNo=01144807.1 }