Government reform in Bethlehem is going nowhere, slow.
The Town Board on Wednesday, July 25, heard a report on three possible changes to government structure and, perhaps not surprisingly, decided not to do anything with them.
Their reasoning was focus should be on the budget process and change should occur outside of any election hoopla. It is good the town is focusing on its priorities, but at the same time, we must wonder exactly when this politics-free, perfect time to rearrange government might come about, and when the writing on the wall will be noticed.
One might assume more study and thought is called for, but it would be tough to make that argument. At this point, we can honestly stand in awe at the amount of time and effort that has gone into this endeavor. We wonder if any of it will ever be taken into account because if it were, much of this would be settled.
Here’s the summary. In 2008, the 20/20 Committee was given a broad charge to examine the future course of the town and what might be done to steer it in the proper direction. Over 18 months, that group of 27 members met a total of 20 times, including a presentation made to the Town Board in June of 2009. From there, it was about one year until the 20/20 Implementation Committee began meeting. A group of 16 split into three subcommittees to make intense study of topics raised by the original 20/20 report, including a “Modernization and Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness of Town Government” subcommittee.
This group produced a report entitled “21st Century Town Governance & Management Structure” that put forward the idea of a four-year supervisor term, eliminating elected department heads and giving the supervisor power to appoint or nominate key positions.
When this report was rolled out in the early summer of 2011 (the indirect product of more than three years of work, mind you) the public skewered it. There is really no nicer way to put it, because the amount of support this report received was infinitesimal when compared to the wave of disapproval.
When Supervisor John Clarkson was elected to office (he was co-chairperson of the subcommittee that released the aforementioned report, by the way) one of his first actions was to form a Governance Options Study Committee (among others) whose charge was nearly identical to that of the then-defunct 20/20 subcommittee he co-chaired. The only change was the group was also to study a ward structure.
So here Bethlehem stands, with more than four years of study, debate, public meetings and even one vote (the Town Board in August of 2011 halted a proposal to extend the supervisor’s term in a 3-2 vote). It becomes more and more clear there is either a lack of political will to make a tough and risky decision or a sentiment you should not fix what is not broken. Or perhaps both.
Either way, the Town Board is to be applauded for turning its attention to more pressing matters and refraining from spending precious time reliving the past. Let’s hope it does the same later this year when this issue comes back around and approach government reform with a focused mission in mind, rather than the kitchen sink approach that has been used so far.
Or alternatively, another committee could be formed to produce another report, perhaps on dead horses and the various options for beating one. There must still be a few slots left on Town Hall’s bookshelves.
