Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MsKreed

Term Limits Discussion Back in County Legislature

Recommended Posts

The first meeting of the Legislature Term Limit Review Advisory Committee , on held March 2nd, was mostly informative discussion by Attorney Maggs on what options the Legislature may have regarding language and the possibility of a public referendum. 

Maggs provided a "packet" to Committee members explaining cases and laws pertaining to Public Referenda on Term Limits, and answered several questions. 

During the previous Legislative Session, he'd indicated to the prior Term Limits Committee that a referendum was "forbidden" by NY State. 

Quote

Attorney Maggs re-iterated that the Term Limit proposal that was previously recommended by the Committee does not fit within the parameters of Section 23(2) of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, and a referendum is not permitted. New York State law forbids referenda unless expressly permitted in statute. He stated that Courts have uniformly ruled that the referendum provisions do not apply to measures that limit the number of terms as official can hold office.

However, discussion at this meeting made reference to Cayuga County's Referendum on Term Limits in 2019 (this was mentioned in Public Comments at a legislature meeting in 2020 just before the Committee was ceased meeting at the start of the pandemic). 

Maggs referred to information in the "packets" that clarified that Cayuga County was indeed legally permitted to hold a referendum since Term Limits were combined with a change in the length of legislative terms (they changed temporarily to a 2 year term for some members in order to facilitate a "staggered" legislature). 

Members of the Committee seemed very interested in exploring that option, as most seem to favor giving the public the opportunity to vote on it.  It should be noted that Mr. Sweet, who has strongly opposed Term :Limits, is on the Committee but was absent for this meeting. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i sent an inquiry to Mr. Margeson in response to indications that type of government and whether to appoint/ elect Executive. he assured me that those issues were NOT within the scope of this committee btw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, if they’re just going to go through the motions or not take it seriously, I’d rather they just not bother. I hate to think the taxpayers are paying for a complete farce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the tone I heard in the meeting, I do believe the members on the committee are taking Term Limits seriously.

Burin especially seemed to encourage pursuing an avenue to let it be voted on by the public. And it sounds like Saglibene had been active in implementing term limits for the Town of Big Flats and feels strongly that it's good way to keep government fresh and encourage new candidates to step up. 

As far as government structure, number of legislator and/or appointed vs elected Exec......it seems those would be separate issues to address in other committees. 

I'm inclined to agree that 5 legislators shouldn't be tasked with all those issues in one committee.  However, I think a different approach would be better......a Charter Revision Commission from members outside the Legislature that could examine all of those questions (including Term Limits) and draft an overhauled Charter.

All of those issues would require amending the Charter, and rather than a bunch of piecemeal amendments to the Charter cropping up on ballots....A Revised Charter (or a choice of multiple options) would be less convoluted. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MsKreed said:

From the tone I heard in the meeting, I do believe the members on the committee are taking Term Limits seriously.

Well that's good to hear. Up until now I don't believe they have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the Minutes have only been posted for posted for the March 3, 2023 meeting, the Term Limit Review Advisory Committee held two in depth meetings on March 30th  and  April 13th, and a final meeting today  recommending to send a draft and recommendation for Term Limits to the Standing Committee to vote on Monday (April 24th) 

The recommendation outlines three consecutive 4 year terms for Legislators and the County Executive.  It will be retroactive to Jan 1, 2023......so the current term would be the first counted in the Term Limits.

Partial unexpired terms would not count toward that maximum, and after sitting out for a full term, a Term Limited official would be eligible to run again. 

They also plan to recommend a resolution be passed that will put the Law to public referendum in November. To meet the BOE timeline, it will be presented in the May 8th  Full Legislature.

Before the Full Board receives it, this will be voted on by the Multi-Services Committee that is comprised of the following members: Michael Smith (Chairman), Lawana Morse, L. Thomas Sweet, Joseph Donovan, William McCarthy.

 

When asked about Term Limits in a 2018 survey, (HERE) Mr. Smith said: "I think that 3 terms as a legislator (12 years) is probably adequate. Steuben County has term limits and they seem to be making it work."

Mrs. Morse was a strong advocate for term limits in her 2022 campaign, and has indicated she will support this.

As a member of the Advisory Committee, Mr Sweet has been very consistent in opposition to Term Limits as noted in the 2018 survey (HERE) 

Mr Donovan had a rather short campaign and it's not clear where he stands on the issue.

Mr McCarthy was in favor of Term Limits in his 2018 survey (HERE) "Yes , I would be in favor of term limits say 3 or 4 terms ( 4 terms being 16 years ) I don't believe it is healthy to have any board be made up of the same people for decades . Just as the county has to continue to grow and change I believe it is in everyone's best interest to have the legislature do the same."

 

 

 

 

There seems to be a good possibility the Multi Services Committee will move it to the Full Legislature ....but I'd certainly encourage any voters who have a line of communication with any of those Committee members make their views clear before Monday's stand committee meetings. 

Edited by MsKreed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MsKreed said:

When asked about Term Limits in a 2018 survey, (HERE) Mr. Smith said: "I think that 3 terms as a legislator (12 years) is probably adequate. Steuben County has term limits and they seem to be making it work."

I can't find it anywhere, but I believe there was discussion about this and that Smith had changed his thinking about term limits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chris said:

I can't find it anywhere, but I believe there was discussion about this and that Smith had changed his thinking about term limits. 

 

If that is the case, then Donovan may be the “tie-breaker” on the committee.

I doubt McCarthy has done a flip; he seems consistent, humble and honest in any issue he addresses.   

Hopefully and Donovan will hear from voters to understand that as “quiet” as the Legislature’s coverage on this issue is, it is something supported by voters (and his predecessor).

And it would be nice  (wishful thinking) that someone can “remind” Smith of his views when he campaigned....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is interesting....

In my earlier post I expected to the Multi-Services Committee to vote on whether to present to the Full Legislature..... because that is where the Term Limits Advisory Committee's recommendation was sent in 2020. 

However......the Agenda for this Monday (4/24/23) has the issue going to the Personnel Committee (with separate resolutions to amend the Charter for Executive and Legislative Term Limits).

That means these members will be voting whether to move it to the Full Legislature:

Martin Chalk (Chairman), Lawana Morse, L. Thomas Sweet, Steven Pickering, John Burin, William McCarthy, Scott Drake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So according to the 2018 candidate survey responses, McCarthy and Drake indicated they would support term limits, and you said Morse would as well. We know Sweet doesn't. The rest are unknowns as far as I can tell. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris said:

So according to the 2018 candidate survey responses, McCarthy and Drake indicated they would support term limits, and you said Morse would as well. We know Sweet doesn't. The rest are unknowns as far as I can tell. 

Correct, and my impression is that Drake and McCarthy have both been as consistent in there support as Sweet has been against it. 

Although, as Chair of this Committee, Burin has remained fair and neutral in his voice on the issue.....when he was a member of the previous Committee in 2019-20, he was on record in the meetings that he'd like to see the Full Legislature vote on it. 

In Jan 2020, when the matter was presented in the Multi Services Committee , McCarthy made the motion to move it forward..... here is part of the exchange that ensued after it failed:

Quote

NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Burin suggested that a Local Law regarding Term Limits for the County Executive and County Legislature be reconsidered.  He suggested amending the Local Law to include a public referendum.  This would allow the  public to decide if the County Executive and the County Legislature should have term limits. 

Mr. Chalk stated that he fully agrees with Mr. Burin's comments. 

Mrs. Sonsire stated that by not moving items out of committee, it prohibits all Legislators to have a vote. 

Mr. Drake stated that a Local Law deserves to be brought to the Full Legislative Board for a vote. 

Mr. Briggs noted that he  did not second this Local Law  because he already put term limits on himself as he intends to only run for two terms.  Mr. Briggs stated he would abstain from any vote and he didn't feel it was right to limiting anyone's terms. 

Mr. Margeson stated he would like to see this Local Law  be brought back to discussion again as a public referendum to be voted on by the public.   

Mr. Strange stated that he is not a big supporter of term limits but does support a public referendum.

Mr. Chalk asked how can this item be brought back to the table as a public referendum.  Attorney Maggs responded that all items need to be put on an agenda which is approved through the Chairman. 

Mr. Brennan stated that he would like to see the Term Limits Advisory Committee reconvene to continue to gather information. 

Mr. Sweet stated he is not for term limits because he believes  term limits already exist every four years.  He also stated length of service creates experience and knowledge.  Mr. Sweet stated he believes Term Limits takes away the right of the voters. 

Mrs. Woodard stated she feels that length of service obtains experience and knowledge.  She noted that there are no term limits on other elected official and questions why there is a sense of urgency to have term limits for County Legislators and County Executive.  

 

Edited by MsKreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2023 at 11:14 AM, MsKreed said:

the Agenda for this Monday (4/24/23) has the issue going to the Personnel Committee (with separate resolutions to amend the Charter for Executive and Legislative Term Limits).

That means these members will be voting whether to move it to the Full Legislature:

Martin Chalk (Chairman), Lawana Morse, L. Thomas Sweet, Steven Pickering, John Burin, William McCarthy, Scott Drake

The resolutions to move the Term Limits to the (May 8th) Full Legislature Meeting passed 6-1 by the Personnel Committee.

If passed by the Full Legislature, they will be subject to "permissive referendum" once signed by the Executive.  This means the proposed laws amending the Charter would go to the voters in November if there is either a public petition or a Legislative resolution filed after passage......or be effective 45 days after passage if no resolution or petition is offered. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im going out on a limb(and hope im wrong) to say it going this quickly to full Legislature gives me a feeling its going to be voted down. the less its discussed the less likelihood the "press" gets a hold of it to help it gain any traction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Adam said:

im going out on a limb(and hope im wrong) to say it going this quickly to full Legislature gives me a feeling its going to be voted down. the less its discussed the less likelihood the "press" gets a hold of it to help it gain any traction

 

Actually, since the Advisory Committee recommends to have it put out for public vote as a permissive referendum in November, they wanted to move quickly purely for the purpose of meeting the BOE timeline requirements.

While Chairing the Committee, Burin expressed a possibility of writing a Your Turn piece to inform the Public that the matter has been introduced. So he's certainly not afraid of the press knowing about it. 

 

As it stands, it will “probably” pass with a close vote. 

Sweet and Brennan are hard “NAYS”....and Smith had voiced support back in 2018, but seemed to reverse his position when he was on the 2019-20 Advisory Committee.

Six previously elected legislators will likely support it:  Margeson, Drake, McCarthy, Burin, Strange and Chalk all have voiced support for the Public Referendum back then and have seemed to remain supportive this time around.

Of those newly elected, Morse and Saglibene have voiced strong support. There's no clear idea where Donovan, Palmer, Pickering or Stermer stand on the issue.  

So that’s  likely 8 'Yea' and 3 'Nay' votes.....

So anyone in the 6th, 7th, 8th or 11th districts should reach out to those guys.

 

Edited by MsKreed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd REALLY like to see this go to a public referendum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Chris said:

I'd REALLY like to see this go to a public referendum. 

I think there's a fair chance of that happening.....now that the Legislative Attorney has acknowledged that it is not "forbidden" by NYS Home Rule Law. 

If the previous Legislature had not been flatly told a referendum was prohibited, it may have happened in 2020.

I'm very glad Margeson chose to bring the topic back this session. 

 

Edited by MsKreed
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just sent an email to our county legislator voicing my approval of these proposals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very interested to see how tonight's vote goes.....if all the legislators are consistent with past public statements, it will be a narrow margin.  

Whatever the outcome, there is a good chance for lively discussion.  

If you are unable to attend, you can tune into the Live Stream (HERE).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The five legislators who voted "Nay" were:

Sweet, Brennan, Chalk, Stermer and Smith.

 

Sweet, Brennan and Smith's votes were consistent with their past public opposition, and I don't believe I'd ever heard Stermer state a position before this. 

But I was surprised that Chalk seemed to reverse from what he'd said back in the Multi Services Committee in January 2020 when it was discussed before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more surprised by Stermer's "Nay" vote than anything. Although as you said, he's never voiced a position on this before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has he ever taken a public stand on anything 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a good thing for the county and I hope the voters get behind it. People complain about entrenched politicians, well, now's our chance to put an end to it. At least here in Chemung County.

Sorry, but I disagree with Smith that the legislature be given the ability to appoint a county administrator, similar to what the city does with a mayor and city manager. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Morse: " I would like to address something that Mr. Sweet had spoken of, is, what kind of person would be get who would come in as a county exec and, um, knowing that in twelve years they gotta go find a new job. Right there's the problem. It should not be a job. It should not be a job for any one of us sitting around this table, around these desks. This is a service to our community and we need to come in, do our job, that has been given to us by the voters and be ready to step out, and mentor somebody else to come in with a fresh voice and fresh ideas."

Boom. Someone gets it.

( Bold added by me for emphasis. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...