Opinions against extending the term of Supervisor
Below are opinions against extending the term of Supervisor to 4 years. If you want to view opinions in favor click here.
Bill Noel, III submitted his comments from the March public hearing for us to post here. It's a long read but well worth it. Below his comments are two short video highlights from the August hearing.
Bill's words:
Madame Supervisor and Board Members,
I rise tonight to formally express my absolute opposition to the proposed local law #1 of 2009 to extend the supervisor’s term of office from two to four years and to provide some of the reasons that I am so opposed. While I have had the opportunity to express my opposition to most of you privately, I also feel it is important to do so publicly. To the extent that my comments repeat any points made by others I apologize, but I think they bear repeating.
As you are aware the current election cycle for the town board calls for the election of the a two year supervisor and the election to two town board members every two years for a four year term. The effect of these staggered four year terms and the supervisor’s two year term is that the majority of seats on the town board are before the voters every two years. This means that the voters have the power to change town policy on any matter every two years by choosing candidates who share their views. The greatest impact that changing the Supervisor’s term of office will have is to deny the voters the absolute power to control the course of the town at every town election. There is simply put no potential benefit which could be argued to come about from a four year term for the supervisor, which justifies diminishing the rights and powers of the voters.
To put this in perspective I will make some comparisons between the town and our other governments which I believe will make my point clear, and reveal the error of some other arguments that have been advanced to support the change.
It is widely and I believe correctly held that the most f fundamental power of the government is the power to tax and establish the budget, and that all other government action is either further advanced or made impossible by the budget. Just as there is no law if it can not be enforced, there is no enforcement if it is not budgeted for. In the United States, the power of the budget rests with the legislature. The Town is unique in that it is only government that we live under that only has a legislature; to the extent that there are executive powers or duties, they fall to the head of the legislature (supervisor) or other limited elected officials. Every other legislature we live under has the majority of seats before the voters either every two years or within two years. Every member US House of Representatives (Congressmen, the only ones allowed to propose taxes) is elected every two years, every member of the State Legislature is elected every two years, and while county legislators get three year terms they are staggered to that within 2 years six of the nine members face the voters.
What you propose is to make the Town Board less accountable to the people than every other form of government we have. Comparing the Supervisor’s term to the executive branch; County Executive, Governor or President forgets the unique role of the supervisor as legislator and grossly over estimates the complexity of the job.
It has been suggested by the supervisor and others that it takes at least or more that two years to “learn the job” and as a result the supervisor needs at least four years to “get things done.” I simply do not believe that. If you do not know what the job of supervisor entails you should not run for it, let alone be elected. I will accept that as with any job, the supervisor is likely to get better at it and do the job more easily with additional experience, and that a supervisor in his or her second or third term will likely be more accomplished than they were in the first. I also believe that it will be quite obvious within the first term whether a supervisor is going to continue to grow into the position, or as sometimes happens will be an unmitigated failure or counterproductive influence. The potential for a smoother 3rd and 4th year for the right supervisor in not worth the risk of having the wrong person in office for twice as long as need be. Like all employers, the voters make mistakes and like all employers they should not have to live with them longer than necessary.
It has also been suggested that having to run every two years prevents progress because it “makes thing political” and that stops office holders from acting on issues or problems. I suggest a solid rule of thumb: if you don’t think it is a good idea to do something in an election year, it is probably not the right thing to do. Make no mistake, the right thing to do and the easy thing to do are not always (and very often are not) the same thing. You were not elected to do the easy. Having to explain to the voters, and get their approval, for what you want to accomplish in their name is how it is supposed to work. Even if what you want to do is correct, if you can not get the voters to agree with you, it just means you’re probably not the right person for the job or it is not the right time to do it.
It has also been suggested that it is inconvenient and expensive for the supervisor to have to run every two years. It is worth noting that changing the supervisor from a two to a four year term will not result in the public having to pay for fewer elections. Given the staggered terms of the town board there will be a town wide election every two years, so the public cost will not decline, nor will the moral obligation of the voter to turn out and be heard. What may well happen is that the two town board seats that will become the “mid-term elections” might get less voter turn out, similar to congress in a non-presidential year, but reducing the incentive of the voter to turn out and make an informed choice is never in the public interest. As it relates to the cost for the candidate, frankly that should not be a Town Board concern. The supervisor is well compensated by the official salary, additional payments for “additional” duties such as chief fiscal officer, and quite generous health and retirements benefits. Given that there are no professional or education pre-requites for the job, the cost of running for office is negligible relative to the reward. In addition to being a known expense it is worth noting that the vast majority of these expenses are borne by the political parties or other donors and not the supervisor personally.
The caution here is that is very easy for public officials to come to believe that what is in their best interest is in the public’s best interest. This is usually not intentional, but its being inadvertent does not make it any more acceptable nor reduce the risk to the public.
The Town Clerk, Highway Supervisor and Receiver of Taxes all have four year terms, so should the Town Supervisor is another argument. The difference between these other positions and the town supervisor is that they are ministerial in nature and have very limited discretion or policy making roles; their performance is based on how well they do what they are expected to do, not what they choose to do. It is the setting of policy (and budgets) which sets the supervisor above these limited executive positions and demands that he or she be more and more often accountable to the voters.
I have been told by a few members of the Board that it is “up to the voters” or that they are supporting the supervisor’s request because they are merely voting to “let the voters decide.” Respectfully, that argument is at best merely shirking your responsibility or far worse not understanding what your responsibility is. Yes, with out question, if you adopt this local law, there will be a referendum, but not because it is something to be decided in the manner of taking a poll. The power to make the local law and change to term of office rests with the Town Board. Voting in favor of this law is stating without equivocation that you believe as a matter of public policy that the term of the Supervisor needs to be four years. You are frankly staking your reputations and performance on it and will and should be judged by the voters with regards to it next time you stand for election. This needs to be about policy, not politics. The question before you is not should Kathy get a four year term, but should the balance of power of this and all future town boards be altered. The reason there will be a referendum is not to let you pretend the decision is not in the first instance yours, but rather because the matter is so basic to the democratic (small d) rights of the voters that they must be given the opportunity to directly and immediately repudiate your actions. The referendum is an appeal from your decision, not an excuse to pretend that you are not making one. There is any number of decisions that the Board can make that the voters can through the permissive referendum challenge, this is one of the few where the State Legislature challenges you on our behalf, and makes you submit your decision to the voters with no effort or petition. While the state legislature understands it is bound by Home Rule, it expects you to be similarly bound by local voters.
As a final point I would like to address the potential, but false argument, that a longer term of office would lead a more continuity in government or institutional memory, and that there could be too much turn over in office. On this I will admit to relying on memory, but in the past 25-30 years I can recall only one single-term supervisor who served only one term due to losing a re-election campaign, and in fact only one other who retired after one term due to health concerns. Two single-term supervisors in thirty years does not seem to be an alarming trend, at least as it relates to a goal of supervisors serving long enough for voters to reap the rewards of their experience.
In conclusion the proposed local law is not supported by any public policy rationale, serves no public purpose, and can only be viewed positively in a limited and inappropriate political light. I encourage and expect you vote against it, to do otherwise will dishonor your oath of office.
Councilman Karl Rohde speaks his reasons for being against it:
Jean Noel speaks against extending the term:
Now that you heard opinions against, take a minute to view opinions for it by clicking here.
