Referendum - Term Extension
Term of office extension - Supervisor
Submitted by cnarbey on Wed, 11/11/2009 - 2:09pmWell, there was a smashing rejection of this proposal by the 3,009 voters (about 40% of those eligible to vote) who bothered to get their fat fannies out the door to vote!
Over 75% of voters said "NO" to the proposition.
So much for all of the (phantom) constituents that the 4 Republican Town Board members claimed had been bugging them for the increase in the Supervisor term of office!
Sadly, about 60% of eligible voters did not care enough to exercise their franchise. I am for sanctions against those who don't vote.
Kent Election Results 2009
Submitted by JDKJJK on Wed, 11/04/2009 - 8:34amThe election results are in and the big news is the proposal to extend the term of Supervisor suffered a resounding defeat. In other races, congratulations are in order for Mr. Lou Tartaro and Mr. John Greene as they are the respective winners for the Kent Town Board.
I also wish to extend my congratulations to Joyce Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell did not win but the fact that she received nearly 40% of the vote based on her sole position of eliminating the Receiver of Taxes should send a strong message to our elected representatives.
For additional election results you can visit the Putnam County Board of Elections by clicking on the following Link:
http://www.putnamcountyny.com/boe/vote/index.htm
Jim Kirk
Response to George Baum's "Comments to the Affirmative"
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 7:37pmWhile George Baum, whom I deeply respect, makes a civil argument for extending the Superisor's term of office from 2 to 4 years, he undermines his own position by calling attention to the fact that this proposal, for which the same Supervisor who has everything to gain by its passage, is promoting it in a blatant and cynical attempt to undermine the public's freedom of choice. Team Doherty, to circumvent NYState law under the legal protection (unchallenged, so far, in court) of Local Law, changed the timing of the lengthened term to begin in the year following the election in which it is to be voted upon. Under State law, if adopted by the voters, this amendment to the Code would not be implemented until the election to follow this one, thus exposing the Supervisor to a contested election. This year she is unopposed, guaranteeing her a total of four years as Supervisor, and six if this referendum is passed. One has to wonder if this is the reason, with so many pressing problems of town administration and property taxes out of control, that this group made codification of our laws its #1 priority. And...the fact that they proposed this change without including term limits is further evidence of an attempt to control our government indefinitely.
George also mentions that it is difficult for a Supervisor to take firm positions that might offend some voters if that person is trying to get elected...that they are "walking on eggs." That is true in two, four or six year terms if winning an election is all that motivates their actions. Do we want to elect people who pander for votes or people who have the strength of character to make the hard decisions based on ethical considerations of service to the public?
To the point that Bill Noel's research indicates that most Supervisor's in our town's history, have enjoyed re-election, some for more than two terms: that is not evidence to support this proposed referendum. To the contrary, it is evidence that these political figures went through the process of being re-elected every two years to let the voters decide, rather than try to usurp the public initiative to choose.
Respecfully submitted,
Joyce Mitchell
4 or Against...You Decide!
Submitted by kfwadmin on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 8:49am
This November 3rd, there will be a referendum offered on the ballot that you will be asked to vote on. The referendum will ask if you agree to extending the term of the Town of Kent Supervisor from 2 years to 4 years.
Kent Fiscal Watch had planned to invite Supervisor Doherty to debate her support for a change from a two-year to a four-year term for the supervisor’s position at their October meeting. The Supervisor declined to debate the issue, stating that she had expressed her opinions on this matter in the Public Hearing on August 17, 2009. Subsequent to that meeting, and with disregard of most public commentary, the Board voted four to one in favor of placing the referendum on the ballot "to let the voters decide." The dissenting vote was cast by Councilman Rohde.
It is now up to you, the voter, to determine if you believe that extending the Supervisor’s term an additional two years is beneficial to the residents of the Town of Kent. As a politically neutral organization, devoted to open government and fiscal responsibility, Kent Fiscal Watch takes no position for or against the proposition. But, because this is an important decision for the Town, we urge every Kent voter to examine the benefits and drawbacks of the proposed change as put forth by the advocates for and against it.
The following content has been prepared for the purpose of educating and informing you the voter about this issue. All following presentations contain written opinions submitted to us and video highlights from the Public Hearing.
Below this posting you will find the normal Kent Fiscal Watch blog. You may find additional opinions on the referendum in the blog as KFW members may write their opinions if they so desire. Please keep in mind that any of the below blog postings are not the opinion of Kent Fiscal Watch but rather the opinion of the individual who contributed the posting.
If you have any questions, please write them in the form of a contact e-mail and we will respond.
Pick a side:
(click "Yes" or "No" to select a side to view)
Letter to newspapers re. 4-yr. term
Submitted by cnarbey on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 8:35pm
Because there has been so little public exposure of this issue, I wrote the following letter to the 4 local newspapers ("Journal News", Putnam Courier", "Putnam County Times" and "Putnam Examiner"). They may not publish it:
Dear Sir or Madam,
Re.: Kent Referendum
I believe that a large number of Kent voters are not yet aware that the Town Board (except Councilman Rohde) has relentlessly pushed forward a change in local law to make the term of the Supervisor 4 years, instead of 2 years, starting in 2010.
This must be ratified by referendum, which will be presented to voters at the poll on November 3.
At poorly attended public hearings this year, the reasons for this change were advanced as follows:
- It takes the incumbent Supervisor's attention from attending to Town business when he/she has to campaign/raise funds for re-election after only 2 years in office. Running every 2 years makes it difficult to focus on the long term.
- It takes a new Supervisor time in his/her first term to "learn the job", make necessary changes from the prior administration and implement policy.
- Getting grants takes longer than 2 years.
- Every other elected position - from President through Governor to local legislatures - has a 4-year term.
The reasons against a 4-year term are:
- Every 2 years, the majority of the 5-person Town Board is up for election (Supervisor plus 2 Councilmen). This gives the voters a chance to change the majority of the Board, should they wish. A 4-year term for Supervisor would make this opportunity available only every 4 years and is less democratic.
- Most local governments in this State have a 2-year term for Supervisor/Mayor.
- It is very difficult for the voters to change back to a 2-year term, if they become dissatisfied with the competence/conduct of an incumbent Supervisor, as the Town Board must change the local law, then have that ratified by referendum.
- The Supervisor is also the Town's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. A 2-year term makes the Supervisor more answerable to the voters than a 4-year term.
I believe that the "cons" outweigh the "pros". The danger of finding out after electing a Supervisor for 4 years that he is incompetent or worse is real. Also, I can't imagine the CEO or CFO of a corporation saying "I need 4 years to learn to do the job and to focus on the long-term"!
Most importantly, I ask that voters become familiar with the issues involved here and (regardless of whether you support or oppose the referendum) speak to their Kent friends and neighbors and then VOTE on Nov. 3.
Kent Fiscal Watch (www.kentfiscalwatch.org) has an impartial presentation of the "pros" and "cons" of this referendum.
Yours sincerely,
Clifford G. Narbey
Kent Cliffs
Town of Kent Public Hearing of 23 March re a Proposal to Change the Term of Office of the Supervisor from Two to Four Years (cont.)
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 4:24pmMaureen Fleming, a resident and attorney, argued that if the Supervisor is held to a two-year term, so should the rest of the Board, who now serve for four years, but on a rotating schedule. Many informal comments by persons in the audience disagreed with Ms. Fleming, pointing out that the Supervisor is also the Financial Officer and holds much more power that that of a single vote.
George Baum, a resident and Chair of the Conservation Advisory Committee, said that he would have preferred to hear the Supervisor and/or the Board, give compelling reasons for this change, but none had been advanced in writing or at a meeting or workshop. Councilwoman Osborne, in response, took reponsibility for the introduction of this initiative, citing that there was so much work to do as Supervisor that four years is required to implement new programs. Other comments indicate wonder at such an assertion...especially for a Supervisor who has now spent nine(9) years on the Board. Most elected Supervisors in Kent have served formerly on the Board or in other government positions.
As mentioned in the earlier posting, a compelling Statement was made by Bill Noel, from which we now quote, as well as his statement concerning his relationship to Kent Fiscal Watch." I have not yet decided where I stand on active or public involvement with KFW as per our conversation this evening, but continue to wish you well in your endeavors."
"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....As you are aware the current election cycle for the town board calls for the election of a two year supervisor and the election (of)...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. ...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"
He went on to make the point that the majority of all levels of US legislative governments are before the voters every two years and that the current proposal,if enacted, would make the Town Board less accountable to the people than any other form of government that we have. He made clear that if one did not know what the job of Supervisor entails, they should not run for the office. "The potential," he stated, "for a smoother 3rd or 4th year for the right supervisor is not worth the risk of having the wrong person in office for twice as long as need be."
"...it is very easy for public officials to come to believe that what is in their best interest is in the public's best interest...I have been told by a few memers 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.' ...that argument is...shirking your responsibility or...not understanding what your responsibility is....Voting in favor of this law is stating ...that you believe as a matter of public policy that the term of the Supervisor needs to be four years... 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 referendum is an appeal from your decision, not an excuse to pretend that you are not making one....In conclusion the proposed local law is not supported by any public policy rationale,...and can only be viewed positively in a limited and inappropriate political light.. I encourage and expect you to vote against it, to do otherwise will dishonor your oath of office."
Town of Kent Public Hearing of 23 March re a Proposal to Change the Term of Office of the Supervisor from Two to Four Years
Submitted by joyce.mitchell1 on Tue, 03/24/2009 - 8:10amThe comments from the well-attended meeting were mostly against the proposal from all political parties, as our poll indicated. Councilman Rohde opened with a well prepared statement against and was followed by many others. The most complete and stirring statement against, one that drew a loud round of applause from the audience, came from Bill Noel, a prominent member of the Republican Committee. Quotes from his speech will be posted to this website later today. Supervisor Doherty announced that "because many people could not be here tonight, the public meeting will be continued on August 17." A most cogent point was made that, if the referendum were to be put on the ballot for the election this November, voters will not know until after the votes are counted if they voted for a two or four year term for their choice of Supervisor.
Joyce
