The Bethlehem Town Board is holding off on discussing government reform until later in the year after hearing a report from the Governance Options Study Committee on Wednesday, July 25.
“I think this is probably something to look forward to as post-budget activity because most of our focus and the public’s will be on that,” said Supervisor John Clarkson after a majority of the board members stated they did not support a ward system for the town, but were open to further discussion.
The presentation was given by Committee Chairman David Liebschutz and was broken into three parts discussing different options for selecting department heads, a possible ward system and term changes for elected officials. The creation of the report was a matter of contention at the July 11 meeting, with some board members questioning Clarkson’s involvement, but the discussion Wednesday concentrated on its contents.
Thumbs down for ward system
According to the report, of the 167 towns eligible under state law to form a ward structure, only 13 have implemented such a system. The nearest town to do so is Queensbury in Warren County.
To implement the system in Bethlehem, the town would need to be broken up by population into electorate districts of either four or six wards. The lines could be drawn by either the state Board of Elections or the town. The proposal would then need to be approved by the public through a referendum.
If the ward system proposal were passed, each sitting board member would represent the citizens of one ward and not the entire town’s population. By state law, term lengths would change to two years unless changed by the Town Board or voters.
Through research and interviews of officials from other towns, the committee found there to be both political and administrative challenges associated with a ward system. The system could make residents from rural areas feel better represented, or work to make the town more divisive. Political parties would need to work within each ward instead of just town wide, and the wards would need to be redrawn every 10 years to account for population shifts provided through the Census.
Board members Kyle Kotary, Joann Dawson and George Lenhardt said they did not feel justified advancing the idea to a citizen’s vote since they would each vote no when the time came.
“I have to say it would be a totally different dynamic here at the board if we were ward against ward… in budget discussions,” said Dawson. “I can’t think of anything that we do where it would not play a major factor in how we voted and how we carried out our functions here.”
Department head debate continues
The committee also researched how nine different towns of similar makeup choose their department heads. In Bethlehem, four are appointed, five are selected through a civil service exam and three are voted in by the public.
The committee focused its efforts on the elected positions of town clerk, receiver of taxes and highway superintendent. The results showed each of the 932 towns within New York choose their department heads in different ways and there does not seem to be a pattern with how this is performed. Depending on size, some smaller rural towns combined the clerk and receiver of taxes position.
“There are lots of ways to skin a cat and these nine towns skin a cat differently,” said Liebschutz. “There is no trend.”
Officials from some towns interviewed felt electing certain department heads was better because it promoted public participation in selecting those who worked within the government and resulted in higher accountability. Others cited low voter turnout, that those running did not have to meet the “professional qualifications” for the position and non-partisan tasks became politicized.
The Town Board said instead of changing how department hears are selected, managerial methods may need to be changed instead. When a 20/20 committee investigated turning elected positions to appointed offices in 2011, the public generally disapproved of the idea in a series of public meetings.
Terms changes held until right time
When it comes to term length and limits, Bethlehem is deemed “typical” of most towns within the state, according to the committee.
The town supervisor serves a two-year term while board members serve staggered, four-year terms. The receiver of taxes and two town justices serve four-year terms, while the town clerk and highway superintendent serve for two years. There is no rule on term limits.
Some officials from other towns interviewed said they felt the supervisor should have a term matching that of board members because frequent elections were disruptive to town operations; it promoted cooperation among the board; and residents could then better remember the resolutions enacted under specific institutions. Others felt if the supervisor was going a good job, they would be re-elected so a longer term wasn’t needed and shorter terms would introduce “fresh” ideas from newly elected officials more often.
There were also different views on instituting term limits. Some said they keep out career politicians and give a greater opportunity for more people in the community to serve. Others felt it led to a loss of experience, resulted in a “negative impact on projects that outgoing officials sponsored” and removed popular elected officials from office.
Most Bethlehem Town Board members said they would be willing to discuss changing the terms of elected officials so they were the same length.
Clarkson and Dawson said they would like the discussion to happen in between election cycles so as to be less biased. It was determined the board would revisit the study after the budget was finalized in November.
“None of these things are as important as our budget crisis right now,” said Kotary. “We don’t have a governmental structure crisis.”
Fellow board member Jeffrey Kuhn said he would be willing to hear more from the public on the subject.
“There’s nothing going into the fall that I would be advocating change on,” said Clarkson on all three subjects.
