ShareThis Page
Voters veto charter change |

Voters veto charter change

Erik Siemers
| Wednesday, November 5, 2003 12:00 a.m

Allegheny County voters narrowly rejected amending the Home Rule Charter to allow County Council members to seek another elective office without resigning, unofficial results show.

With 1,304 of 1,307 precincts reporting, almost 52 percent of voters cast ballots against the change. Voters also rejected the proposed change in May.

The bill’s sponsor, County Councilman Wayne Fontana, D-Brookline, argued the home rule charter should treat all elected officials the same.

Council earlier lost two members who sought other offices. Former Councilman James Simms lost his bid to seek the Democratic nomination for Allegheny County Controller and Democrat Mike Crossey lost his bid for state House last year.

The home rule amendment was joined on the ballot by referendums in Hampton, Robinson, O’Hara and Lincoln.

Hampton residents voted overwhelmingly against changing the township’s charter to indicate the community’s tax limits are based on the Home Rule Act, rather than the Second Class Township Code. Similar changes have passed in Peters and Mt. Lebanon. About 61 percent of voters rejected the change.

The defeat means Hampton may be limited in its flexibility to levy local taxes, because of possible changes in the state tax code, officials said.

In Robinson, about 60 percent of voters authorized the use of tax money to help fund a new township library. Robinson is now served weekly by a bookmobile.

About 75 percent of O’Hara voters approved a home rule charter amendment that reduces the number of signatures required on referendum petitions. Petition backers now will need signatures equal to at least 10 percent of the voters in the most recent gubernatorial election. The requirement was signatures from 25 percent of voters.

In Lincoln, a proposal to borrow $250,000 for a new municipal building failed, 63 percent to 37 percent.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.