Critics decry city distribution of flyers urging 'yes' votes on Johnstown referendums

Oct. 26—JOHNSTOWN, Pa. — The City of Johnstown used taxpayer money to mail to residents copies of a flyer that endorsed positions on the seven referendum questions that appear on this year's general election ballot.

Johnstown's official municipal website also contained a post encouraging voters to vote a certain way.

City Council, earlier this year, approved the questions.

Multiple attorneys and state officials with experience in elections were contacted by The Tribune-Democrat, and none could immediately recall encountering such an issue before.

The city's Home Rule Charter does not provide any specific laws about whether public money can be spent on election issue statements. A spokesperson for the Pennsylvania Department of State said the answer likely lies in the state's city codes, more so than in the campaign finance statute. The individual suggested contacting the county solicitor.

Cambria County Solicitor William Barbin said, "I don't see it as a violation."

Barbin added: "Honestly, I'm not willing to say that I think that this is improper because they're really just saying, 'Here's what the council passed this summer, and this is going to be on the ballot for you to make a decision on.' And, obviously, they highly recommend it."

The City of Johnstown recently ran legal notices with the questions and plain-English explanations — but no recommendation for how to vote — in The Tribune-Democrat.

"A flyer like the paper would have been absolutely no problem at all, and I don't think anybody would have questioned it," Barbin said. "It's that endorsement aspect. But the endorsement really is only repeating that when they passed it, they endorsed it."

'Influence city voters'

Republican mayoral candidate John DeBartola considers the city's use of taxpayer money to send out a flyer endorsing a position on the referendums to be "outrageous."

"I am shocked and appalled (that) taxpayer money was used to influence city voters to vote a specific, certain way," DeBartola said. "While it may be legal, it's appalling to me that Mayor (Frank) Janakovic and the City Council have sat back and allowed this to happen."

DeBartola supports retaining the city manager residency requirement.

He also wants to keep the use of ordinances, because they require passing two reads at separate meetings, as opposed to resolutions, which need only one vote.

"The mayor and council seem hellbent on getting their way in removing the residency requirement from the city charter and removing the double vote to ensure fiscal transparency," DeBartola said.

Janakovic, a Democrat, supports the referendums that, in his opinion, will improve what he called an "outdated" charter that is almost three decades old.

"The referendum questions are a result of an (Act 47) exit plan initiative that council put together to review the charter. ... The initiative is not political or partisan," Janakovic said. "We're looking at good government initiatives based on the committee review process."

He described voter outreach and education as an "eligible city expense," but also pointed out "that flyer wasn't sent out by City Council."

"It was sent out through a combination of City Hall administration and partly the Act 47 group sending that out, then tying it in so that people are educated and understand exactly what they're voting for. So it was not meant to be biased," Janakovic said. "It was meant to relay the facts."

The Act 47 team did not provide a comment when asked about the matter.

Voters told: 'Vote YES'

One ballot question asks: "Shall Section 601(a) of the City of Johnstown Home Rule Charter be amended to allow City Council to determine by Ordinance whether to require the City Manager to become a resident of the City?" If approved, the measure would give City Council the ability to eliminate the residency requirement for the city manager position.

Four referendums are in regard to changing procedures to allow certain business to be done with resolutions instead of ordinances.

Two others concern the budget and contracts.

The message on the flyer is unequivocal: "Vote YES to Charter Amendments!"

Opinions are given that the proposed changes will make City Council more efficient and remove bureaucracy. "Saves Your Tax Dollars!" is added.

A similar message — "Vote YES To Charter Amendments!" — is at the website: https://cityofjohnstownpa.net/vote-yes-to-charter-amendments/.

"On Tuesday, November 2nd, City Residents will have the opportunity to vote on proposed amendments to the City's Home Rule Charter," according to the post. "These proposed changes will make your city government work faster and more efficiently in providing quality public service to you. These changes will streamline governance to make your City a better place. These amendments also open City Council to reexamining the residency requirement for a manager, creating a better applicant pool, and finding an expert candidate to oversee the City."

The referendums are supported by the administration and the city's Act 47 recovery team, as Johnstown prepares to exit the state's program for distressed municipalities by April 28, 2023.

'Formal city action'

Interim City Manager Dan Penatzer said he made the decision to send out 9,544 mailers at a cost of $2,600 for printing and postage. The flyers included the note: "Paid for by the City of Johnstown."

"They (City Council members) haven't approved it formally," Penatzer said. "I approved it. Council's aware of it. It will get approved as just normal, routine business is when it's expenditures."

Penatzer said he consulted with city solicitor Elizabeth Benjamin, who did not respond to a request for an interview. He did not consider the flyer to be making a political statement, but rather providing information about a plan supported by council.

"We didn't look at it as supporting a political decision in that way," Penatzer said. "This was actually an ordinance that was adopted by City Council, and what they're doing is promoting or supporting the terms of that ordinance. It's a city action, a City Council action, that's being sought. It's not like some outside, unrelated political position. This stems from a formal city action. I think that's the difference."

Some flyers have also been sent to noncity residents, who cannot vote on the referendums.

"We tried to limit that," Penatzer said. "They're delivered by route, by postal route. ... The postal routes aren't along the city line. They cross the city line. So, if the route was substantially Johnstown, then we included that route. And, in such a case, they'll get delivered to everybody on that route, and that could be a Conemaugh, or a Ferndale or a township address."

Former Councilwoman Charlene Stanton, a candidate in this year's election, sharply criticized the city for sending out the flyer and posting the endorsement of a position at the website. She supports "no" votes on the ballot questions.

"The city budget authorizes the spending of all funds," Stanton said. "Where in the current budget is allocation made to spend money on political campaigning? Nowhere. Council is the legislative body of the city. When did council authorize the spending of taxpayer money on this? They didn't, as it would have had to occur at a Council meeting — in an open meeting.

"The city website is funded by taxpayer money. The City's website has a link, saying 'vote yes to the referendums.' Again, this is political campaigning to further the agenda of current council members, as they are the ones who had these referendums placed on the ballot."

Stanton added: "There are provisions in the election laws, in addition to required campaign finance reporting."

Deputy Mayor Marie Mock said she was OK with the city using public funds to send out the flyers and contrasted the expense with the money the city needed to spend to defend itself in numerous legal actions brought by Stanton and former City Councilman Jack Williams.

"Tax money is used to do a lot of things," Mock said. "All the advertising, anything that needs to be done within the city, is done with taxpayer money. Whether everybody agrees one way or the other, that's just how it is. We don't scrutinize every nickel for everything.

"All the advertising, everything that's done is through taxpayer money. We watch it. Why wasn't everybody up in arms when we were spending (significant money) on legal expenses when they turned out to be nothing?"

She compared the flyer and website messages to when Penatzer includes recommendations for voting items on council's agenda, although those documents are not bound by election law.

"It's no different than a recommendation on the agenda on an item that needs to be voted on," Mock said. "The city manager presents the agenda item, his recommendation is to either approve it or not approve it. It's his recommendation. We don't have to abide by it."