Supervisors report to themselves
Unless you are self-employed, you probably report to a supervisor or boss. Imagine what it would be like if you had a public sector job where you reported to and supervised yourself.
"Impossible," you say.Well, hold on, I am here to tell you that there are some public officials who report to themselves, yes, even supervise themselves. It's bizarre to imagine the conversation if there were an annual or semiannual job-performance review."Look, Self, you are really doing a poor job; if this keeps up, I am going to have to write you (me) up and put you (me) on probation."Where does such a job exist? In every second-class township in Pennsylvania which has working supervisors. And, get this, it is perfectly legal, according to the state's Second-Class Township Code.A working supervisor is one who is not only an elected official but who is also an employee of the township. Typically, in more rural townships, a candidate will run for office to get a decent-paying supervisory job on, let's say, the township highway department. This position is called roadmaster. In some of these municipalities, all three supervisors are township employees, each in charge of a different department. Some work as highway laborers at an hourly rate.Now, here is the tricky part. They draw two separate and distinct salaries - one for their role as employee and one as elected township official. The former can pay $50,000-$60,000 a year, depending on the size of the township, with salaries determined by the township auditors. They get periodic salary increases and generous health care, retirement and other benefits.By comparison, the elected position pays a pittance. Salaries for serving as elected supervisors are set by ordinance and state law and cannot exceed $1,875 to $5,000 per year, depending on the township's population. The duties these supervisors perform are also expected to be separate and distinct. In other words, they can't be performing their jobs as elected supervisors while also being on the clock as township employees.Supervisors in North Whitehall Township in Lehigh County found that out the hard way a few years back. The supervisors would hold their monthly municipal meetings late in the afternoon while they were still at work as municipal employees until a whistleblower caused the State Ethics Commission toend this double-dipping practice and fine the township $32,000.Since then, the township has hired Jeff Bartlett as its first manager to handle the day-to-day operations of the township more professionally. Despite the move to hire a manager, North Whitehall voters rejected a proposal to increase the board from three to five members.There have beenefforts in some townships to stop the practice of having supervisors also be township employees. These proponents also want to expand the board of supervisors from three to five members and want to hire a professional manager who would be appointed by the board. These steps, they believe, would put townships on a more professional footing to deal with the complexities of land management, planning and zoning, growth and technological issues which transcend the expertise of many of these officeholders.Opponents contend that these moves are costly and distance their governing officials from taxpayers.Proponents believe having professionals in key roles, such as manager, provide a continuity in the face of changing board of supervisors members. Others argue, though, that supervisors have the longest tenure - six years - of any municipal or state official, with the exception of judicial officeholders.Morning Call columnist Bill White called the arrangement of having working supervisors an "archaic" system that has "promoted corruption or incompetence in some instances." He said the system gives rise to "saddling communities with municipal employees who lack the training, qualifications and supervision to do their jobs properly." He believes that the growth and fiscal challenges today "require real professionals, not backslapping politicians who get to hire and supervise themselves."Four of the 11 townships in Carbon have five-member boards - East Penn, Kidder, Mahoning and Penn Forest. Just one - Kidder - has a manager. Many of the supervisors in Carbon's smaller municipalities are township employees, too.Those who oppose working supervisors have no legal leg to stand on, because it is memorialized in state law through the Second Class Code. The only way to change this practice is to change the law, and with all that state legislators have on their plates this election year, the last thing they want is a fight with local officials, especially those in their own party.Efforts to expand the number of supervisors frequently run into official or voter headwinds. The board can be expanded in one of two ways: The three supervisors can vote to put the question to the voters in the form of a referendum, or the question can be voted upon if 5 percent of the registered voters in the municipality petition to have the question put on the ballot.The most recent effort locally failed when two of the three supervisors in Moore Township, Northampton County, refused to back the motion of the third supervisor - Daniel Piorkowski. He introduced the resolution at the June and July meetings. The first time, just two of the supervisors, including him, were present, and the other wouldn't go along with the plan.Earlier this month, Piorkowski introduced the resolution again, but the other two refused to back it, branding it as too costly and saying that if voters wanted to expand the board, they should initiate a petition.State officials believe that residents have different expectations of their elected officials, depending on how rural or urban their communities are.Richard Gable, one of the supervisors in Moore who opposes the board expansion, drew up figures which showed that it would cost about $93,000 to expand the board from three to five members and to hire a township manager. This, he predicted, would likely require a real estate tax increase. If the two working Moore supervisors were replaced by others, this would increase the cost of township government, Gable predicted.The issue of board expansion came up nine years ago in Moore when voters said "no" to the idea. Since then, though, the township has continued to grow and now has an estimated 9,600 residents, up about 400 from the 2010 census.We don't think it is a healthy or businesslike practice for elected township officials to be reporting to or supervising themselves. This is a vestige of a bygone, simpler time. Legislative leaders need to visit this issue to see whether it has any place in our modern era of complex government and whether the law should be changed to eliminate this blatant conflict of interest.By Bruce Frassinelli |