Kearns' candidacy stirs questions about term-limit language in Murrysville charter
A incumbent councilwoman's re-election bid has sparked a debate over the Murrysville home-rule charter.
Council President Joan Kearns last week filed a petition to run for a Republican nomination for a second consecutive four-year term. But one of the authors of the municipal home-rule charter says Kearns already has reached her term limit.
Under the document, which was written by nine residents in the 1970s and approved by voters, council members are limited to serving two consecutive terms. But the “Term of Office” part of the charter states that “Councilmembers shall serve four year terms commencing on the first Monday in January following their election.”
Kearns was appointed to council in April 2007, one month after councilman Jack Bankoske resigned. She ran for and was elected to a special two-year term that November. In 2009, she was elected to a four-year term.
Shirley Turnage, one of the authors of the charter, said Kearns served two terms and isn't eligible to run again.
“I know what the intent was,” she said. “I feel that it might be a little complicated, but if you take it step by step, it's clear.”
Municipal Solicitor George Kotjarapoglus issued a ruling earlier this year that disagrees with Turnage. Kotjarapoglus wrote that the charter is “silent” on how a partial term affects the municipal term limit and that it designates a term as four years. Therefore, Kotjarapoglus ruled, Kearns could serve another term, if elected this year.
Kearns said she will abide by Kotjarapoglus' advice.
“The charter deems a term as a four-year term specifically,” she said. “His opinion means I can serve again. I filled in for someone who left council and was elected for the last two years of that term.”
This isn't the first time this portion of the charter has been questioned. Two years ago, Councilwoman Nancy Kacin — who was elected to a two-year term to take over for Councilman Ted Mallickin 2005 and re-elected in 2007 to a four-year term — decided not to run again.
Turnage was consulted about Kacin's situation.
“I felt, according to the charter, it was not OK.”
Turnage said she has no issue with Kearns serving on council; she simply wants the issue to be settled once and for all.
“I have no problem with Joan — she's a fine councilwoman,” Turnage said. “What bothers me is the confusion in the charter.”
That confusion is typical in contracts, said Teri Ooms, executive director of The Institute for Public Policy and Economic Development, a think tank in Wilkes-Barre. Ooms said she hasn't heard of any cases in home-rule charters, however.
“I haven't heard of any cases in particular that mirror the situation, but it's extremely common in any kind of contract,” Ooms said. “It is critical that the home-rule charter contain information about terms and what that means. If someone is appointed because of a vacancy, that should be addressed as well.”
Murrysville's home-rule charter does address vacancies, but it does not explicitly explain how an appointment affects a term limit.Turnage said she has asked an Greensburg-based attorney to review the situation and offer an independent opinion. She wouldn't identify the attorney, only that the individual has no ties to Murrysville.
“This has nothing to do with Joan,” Turnage said. “It has to do with clarifying the process in the charter. Let's clear this up, once and for all.”
Daveen Rae Kurutz is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-856-7400, ext. 8627, or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.