Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Controller Question Number 4

Our fourth question to the Luzerne County Controller candidate was a follow up to question Number 3.

Question Number 4: If you favor home rule, do you believe the position of controller should be an elected one, or should he or she be chosen by another method? Explain your reasoning.

Bob Morgan

As indicated in the previous answer I would not support a Home Rule charter that changed the role of Controller from an elected position to a position of selection because I believe it could impact the independence of the office. I believe abandoning the direct election of the Controller could make him or her worry more about job security and pleasing the County Council or County Executive to ensure job security and would lessen the impact and independence of the Controller's office.
Alice Coffman


Nanda Palissery

The controller position should be an elected one. Appointments naturally lead to possible corruption. The controller is the watchdog of the people's money, therefore the people should elect the controller to maintain his or her independence. If the controller is appointed, he or she would have to answer to those who made the appointment. An elected controller would have to answer to the electorate.

Bob Sypniewski


Edd Brominski

Under home rule it would probably best in the best interests of the public to have the position filled by the elected body.

Walter Griffith

I feel the Controller should always be an elected position and I also feel the position should have term limits on it as well. I feel a term of two terms is plenty for any elected official and there should be no Retirement of pension allowed to any elected official. I would work with the Home Rule Study Commission to be sure that this is inserted in the Charter as well. The reason for this is because the Controller should not be allowed to be in control of the financial "Bible" for longer than 2 terms because it is a very powerful position. I also feel that new people would be beneficial to the taxpayers to formulate new ideas and procedures that would make the Office more productive.


Griffith Usually Loses said...

The financial "Bible"...what the heck does that mean?

Griffith argues that the Controller shouldnt get a pension because he/she oversees the pension fund. This makes no sense. That is more reason why they would be prudent with it and exercise due diligence...since it directly affects them and they have a stake in the game.

Griffith doesnt get it. Term limit?...He just says whatever he thinks will egt him elected. Problem is he hardly wins.

Reminder...this guy is running for multiple public offices in this election. It's kind of like throwing crap against a wall and seeing what sticks. I guess he figures his odds will be better this way of winning something.

Anonymous said...

Griffith doesn't have a clue. He's a bomb thrower. He confuses making noise with "doing the taxpayers business." God help us if this man gets elected to anything.

I've followed Griffith for years. He never has anything constructive to say. He just complains and complains and complains.

Talk about term limits, how about a three strikes you're out rule for running for office. He keeps losing for a reason -- He has nothing constructive to offer.