Council tables ordinance to allow police hires without competition pending civil service opinion

Scranton City Council voted to table an ordinance (filed as Council No. 95, 2025) that would authorize entry-level employment in the police department without competition under circumstances described as affecting public safety.

The action came after public comments raising legal questions about the proposal’s compatibility with state civil service law. Joan Hodowan, a resident, cited “chapter 144, the state’s law on civil service” and singled out section 414407 on temporary appointments, saying the city appears to be proposing authority that normally applies only “in case of riot or emergency.” Hodowan urged the council to involve the police union, the police chief and the civil service commission before advancing the ordinance: “If the administration has not consulted with the union for input, I think you should table this and bring the union in,” she said.

During council discussion a motion was offered to table the item until the council could obtain an opinion from the Civil Service Commission solicitor about implementing the proposed change; the motion was seconded and carried on a roll-call vote. The recorded roll call shows Council members Mister King, Mister Shuster, Doctor Rothschild, Mister McAndrew and Mister Smearle voting yes to table the item. The council’s motion to table leaves the ordinance in committee pending the commission solicitor’s formal guidance.

The transcript record indicates the administration told council members the police chief and the law department “have been in close communications with the commission solicitor who is prepared to assist the commission in implementing this legislation.” Council members said they wanted that solicitor’s written opinion before proceeding.

The transcript does not record a finalized change to the civil service code or any formal agreement with the police union. Council members and public commenters also raised questions about how hires under the ordinance would be integrated into existing collective bargaining arrangements, pension eligibility, benefits and seniority; those points remain unresolved in the record and were part of council members’ rationale for tabling.

Council staff or the administration did not provide in the meeting a written civil-service solicitor opinion or a final legal determination that would establish how the proposed hiring method would interact with Pennsylvania civil service provisions.