10/18/2026
Thanks to Allegheny County Councilman Dan Grzybek, we get some clear insight into how supporters are trying to defend the referendum that peels back restrictions on County Council.
He claims he just wants "a County Council that works better for the people it serves." He points out that 15 members share just 3 (soon to be 4) staff members and lists off their core administrative duties. He claims that serving 15 different districts makes it impossible for staff to "know the communities and organizations each of us represents"—which is an interesting line, considering knowing the local community is supposed to be the actual job of the elected Council member (and usually the excuse given for why they spend so much time at parades and ribbon cuttings).
He goes on to blame a lack of staff for a "weak Council," asserting that many of Allegheny County's current fiscal shortfalls "trace back to a weak Council and past executives that have steamrolled it."
But the most concerning part is his declaration that "Council needs the capacity to act as a co-equal branch of government."
And therein lies the core problem. That is not what the Home Rule Charter set out to do when voters adopted it in 1998.
The framers of the Charter specifically designed County Council to be a semi-professional, part-time citizen board—ordinary residents holding everyday jobs who represent different regions of the county to approve budgets and act as a simple check on executive power. It was deliberately structured to prevent 15 full-time, career-politician operations from taking root. That’s why Section 7(c) was written into the Charter: to limit costs and stop the creation of 15 mini-executive suites complete with personal staff, district offices, and county benefits.
Let’s break down where his logic falls apart:
The Historical Reality: Before the 1998 Charter took effect, Allegheny County ran under 3 full-time Commissioners. Each had 1 or 2 core assistants—totaling roughly 10 to 15 key administrative staff managing the entire county government. They handled services for over 40,000 more residents than we have today, with significantly less total body count than today's 15 council seats plus staff.
Technological Efficiency: Those 3 Commissioners and small staff ran the county in the paper, mail, and fax era. Today, administering legislative work relies on digital filing, email workflows, and automated communication tools that make routine management exponentially faster for shared staff than 30 years ago.
If they need budget help, they can hire it right now: If Council feels "steamrolled" during budget season, nothing in the Charter stops them from using Council's overall operational budget to hire central, non-partisan financial analysts and budget researchers. They don't need to rewrite the County Charter to fix an internal research problem.
He is right about a few things: a "Yes" vote doesn't fund anything today, doesn't increase their base pay, and doesn't lift the cap on their overall budget (a provision they quickly dialed back after public backlash).
What a "Yes" vote ACTUALLY does is permanently strip those original 1998 voter protections out of the Home Rule Charter.
Sure, it’s easy for politicians to promise now that no one will take advantage of it. But current Council members don't exactly have a glowing track record when it comes to honoring ethics rules or state laws. Do you really want to open the door and trust future politicians with fewer guardrails?
Vote NO on the Charter Amendment. Keep Section 7(c) intact.
