Past and current department heads say to keep positions elected, not appointed
If there was a frosty reception for government reform ideas in Bethlehem at a late May meeting, then Town Hall was just about sub-zero on Wednesday, June 8.
Most of the evening’s Town Board meeting was devoted to collecting public comment on a 20/20 Advisory Committee report that suggests making changes to Bethlehem’s governmental structure, including making the positions of receiver of taxes, town clerk and highway superintendent appointed instead of elected.
With a scant few exceptions, a steady stream of speakers panned that idea. While many questioned the basis for the report’s conclusions, more said they simply don’t want to see their right to any vote taken away.
In my heart and in my gut, it just strikes me as very, very wrong, said resident Donna Holmes, which was a sentiment expressed in various forms by many speakers.
Members of the 20/20 Committee, however, said those changes are not being put forward as a means to reduce voter influence or to criticize current office holders, but rather to standardize the town’s organization. There are many bigger departments with appointed or civil service supervisors, said 20/20’s John Clarkson.
`The current management structure is sort of an accident of history…these are the default positions of state law,` he said.
He added that many towns in the state have made the change.
Former and current occupants of the three positions gave their thoughts, and all were opposed to the proposed change.
`Presently the people are my boss…I am concerned is the position were appointed there would be pressure from the supervisor or the Town Board,` said Receiver of Taxes Nancy Mendick.
Though the report argues there are consolidation opportunities contingent on making the positions appointed, Highway Superintendent Gregg Sagendorph, who will be running for his 11th consecutive term in November, said he doesn’t just doesn’t see it that way.
`We’ve been sharing personnel and equipment [with the Department of Public Works] for years. This is nothing new,` he said.
He mentioned plowing, mowing and street paving as areas where the two departments share resources.
The committee’s report does not make specific consolidation recommendations or identify a dollar figure when it comes to savings, though it references a 2006 report that said $300,000 to $450,000 of annual savings could be realized through Highway/DPW consolidations. Clarkson said it’s clear voters favor consolidation, and said it’s tough to identify specific savings because it depends on how the changes would be implemented.
`The savings that are to occur here, if they are to occur, are up to the board here or to a future board,` he said. `We’re just not in a position to dictate them.`
Comptroller Suzanne Traylor said that people shouldn’t think appointed offices are just political bargaining chips. She applied for her (appointed) job through a job posting and went through a normal job interview that was not political at all, she said.
`Anybody out there could have applied for this job…the board looked at my credentials,` she said.
Former Supervisor Jack Cunningham, who formed the original 20/20 Committee during his time in office, said he’s surprised this is the first thing the implementation committee is addressing out of a long list of objectives.
`I think this conversation is way ahead of where the town should be at this point,` he said.
He also called for more details on cost savings, saying without concrete consolidations that `this becomes a solution without a problem.`
Though the election/appointment issue was the hot topic at Wednesday’s meeting, the report also suggests extending the term of the town supervisor from two years to four and reassessing the staff appointment process itself.
Comment was more varied on the term extension, with some saying a longer term makes sense so the supervisor can tackle big issues. Others said they like having the option to change three members of the five-person Town Board every two years.
Any of the proposed changes would have to be approved by voters and would appear on the ballot as separate items. f the Town Board wishes to put any of the measures forward in November, it must decide to do so by Sept. 9, which leaves a whole summer of debate. 20/20 members have said a complete and public discussion should take place.
`There’s got to be a dialogue in regard to this issue,` said 20/20 Co-Chair and former town supervisor Theresa Egan. `I think that’s all we’re saying, is there’s options out there.`
Comments may be submitted in writing to the 20/20 Committee by email: [email protected], or by mail: Bethlehem 20/20 Advisory Committee, c/o Robin Nagengast, Department of Economic Development and Planning, 445 Delaware Avenue, Delmar 12054.
“
