Legislator Barry Kantrowitz speaks out on Rockland County Charter Reform
For almost 2 years the Rockland County Legislature worked to reform the County Charter to address significant issues relating to the day to day operation of Rockland County government. The Charter is like the Constitution of the County. This process began long before I was appointed in January of this year and continued throughout the year without my direct involvement. Although most of the work was performed by the legislative leadership of both parties, I followed along as drafts were circulated to all 17 legislators. Once approved by the Legislature and the County Executive, any proposed Charter Reform would have to be voted on by the people of Rockland County in November.
From the outset it was made very clear to me that the bipartisan plan for this reform was to address basic housekeeping functions, processes and procedures that needed to be updated. These changes included, among other things, improvements to the budget process that everyone agreed was beneficial to the County. Both the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Legislature had agreed that the issue of “term limits” was not going to be included in the reform so as to keep “politics” out of the process and insure that all of the agreed upon and needed reforms could be presented to the people of Rockland to approve. By not including the politically charged “term limit” issue, about which reasonable people can certainly disagree, the thought was that “politics” would not get in the way of needed administrative reforms that both sides agreed were in the best interest of the people of Rockland. There were to be no controversial or distracting issues in the proposed reform so that the needed changes, mundane as they might be, could pass a county wide vote.
Months ago, the Legislature’s proposed Charter changes were submitted to County Executive Day and his staff for their comments and suggestions. Mr. Day was told up front about the plan not to address term limits in the Charter Reform and he was asked if that was a deal breaker for him. The answer then was “no” and therefore both members of the Legislature and Mr. Day’s administration spent countless additional hours negotiating and adding substantive changes proposed by Mr. Day and his staff. Neither side got everything they wanted. A compromise was reached on many issues and 2 final documents were drafted, each of which contained minor differences being worked out during the last few days of negotiation.
After the proposed drafts were placed on the Legislator’s desks in chambers, a technical procedure required by law, Mr. Day announced new charter reform proposals including term limits, an “enhanced” two hat rule and a requirement for special elections to replace legislative vacancies, instead of the traditional and much less costly process of appointment for the year.
Mr. Day, a former legislator, was well aware that he could not as the County Executive introduce his proposed version of charter reform; only a legislator can introduce legislation and he did not get the support of even one legislator to sponsor his last minute proposed changes. He knowingly engaged in political grandstanding by “firing for effect” without any real expectation that his proposed politically charged and controversial proposals would ever be voted upon. And, just as expected, they weren’t. The Legislature overwhelmingly and in a bipartisan manner passed the fully negotiated proposed charter reform by a 15-1 vote. The County was on its way to getting the opportunity to vote on needed changes to the County Charter.
The County Executive thereafter led a Facebook and blog campaign to support his claim that the Legislature failed to address his political issues. He threatened to and eventually did veto the very legislation he and his staff negotiated for over a period of months; the legislation with bipartisan support for important changes to improve the functioning of Rockland County government. Mr. Day threw out 2 years of hard work because he didn’t get something he knew wouldn’t pass and that wasn’t even presented to the Legislature for a vote.
On Wednesday night August 6, the Legislature voted to override Mr. Day’s veto. The override received bipartisan support in a 12-4 vote with 2 of the 5 Republican Legislators voting for the override. The residents of the County will now have the opportunity to vote on the proposed Charter revisions which everyone agrees are required, but which do not contain issues about which many people disagree.
My vote to override the veto had nothing to do with my position on term limits, an enhanced two hat rule or special elections. None of those items were introduced this year for consideration. I have no problem addressing each one of those items when they are raised in proper form, but I want to make it clear that I voted to override the veto because there was absolutely no legitimate reason to waste almost two years of hard bipartisan work by legislators just because the County Executive decided, at the last minute, to say it’s my way or it won’t be at all. The people of Rockland deserve better than that.
We can have a good open debate on term limits, on whether there is a need for a two hat rule and what such a rule would actually accomplish, and whether the considerable cost and expense of organizing and holding a special election on short notice is better for the County than the temporary appointment process with an election in November. I support an open discussion on those items and I am certain there are valid arguments in favor and against each suggestion. The fact that there is a significant difference of opinion among people is the exact reason why it did not belong in the current proposed Charter Reform; there is no real disagreement about the current proposed Charter changes and they should pass with overwhelming support.
Since I made a comment on term limits during the public meeting on Wednesday night I have no problem restating my personal belief that I could support reasonable legislative term limits coupled with changes in the current practice of all legislators being up for election at the same time. Despite the cries we sometimes hear to “throw them all out” in reference to Congress and other governmental bodies, there is a real value to the continuity and institutional knowledge that some experienced legislators bring to the body. Having stated my willingness to consider term limits, I recognize that many people, and certainly many of my constituents view regular elections as the shortest term limits possible; you can vote out any legislator after one term without term limits. Similarly, many well respected constituents believe that term limits impede a person’s right to vote for someone they believe is still the best person for the job. Term limits are sometimes said to benefit people who don’t vote and punish those who do, because term limits themselves change the players without, or even in spite of, input from the voters.
As someone who is brand new to politics, so far serving less than one year (a quarter of a term,) I often think 3 terms or a total of 12 years of service should be enough for anyone. Then I look at the six currently serving legislators (3 from each party) who have each served more than 12 years and I think of how valuable their institutional and historical knowledge has been to me as a rookie. So while I understand the desire to see new faces in government from time to time, it’s still not so clear cut to me. I am certainly open to hearing from the people of Rockland on this issue and the others noted above.
Posted on 8 Aug 2014, 11:21 - Category: In the News
