Allegheny County Council will consider sending two ballot questions, including a proposal to limit its own members and other officials to three terms, to voters this November.
Under the current Home Rule Charter, only the county executive is limited to three consecutive terms in office. If council passes the proposed ordinance and voters approve the change in November 2023, elected county officials would be barred from serving more than three full terms in any one elected county office. That change would affect posts that include the county sheriff, county controller, county treasurer, and district attorney.
In the legislation, Democrat Tom Duerr and Republican Suzanne Filiaggi, who sponsored the bill, write that placing a term limit on the county executive but no other elected office “serves no meaningful purpose.”
Some county posts have been resistant to turnover. Current county Treasurer John Weinstein and District Attorney Steven Zappala have both held their posts for six terms – though Weinstein has decided to run for county executive rather than for another term as treasurer this year. Among council members themselves, Nick Futules and Bob Macey have already served more than three terms.
Supporters say extending the limit to other county offices would allow for officials to serve multiple terms in one position, while expanding access to other people who might be interested in running for the seat.
The second ballot question would, if passed by council and voters, recast pay for county councilors as an annual salary of $10,939. Presently, the charter says councilors receive a per-meeting stipend that maxes out at that amount if they attend 20 out of the year’s 24 regular council meetings. They receive no additional compensation for committee meetings, hearings, and other special meetings throughout the year.
Democrat Bob Macey, who sponsored the bill, noted that a 2016 government review commission recommended that compensation be offered on a per-year basis.
According to the report, the charter currently gives the incorrect impression that council members are paid according to the number of meetings they attend, though they all receive the same pay if they attend at least 20 regular meetings.
“Compensation through per-meeting stipends is confusing, susceptible to multiple interpretations and unnecessary,” the report reads. Calling the compensation a “salary” would also bring the county in line with other municipalities that have part-time councils..
The ordinances were referred to council’s committee on government reform. They must be approved by the full council before the questions are sent to county residents for a vote.
