Jump to content
TTL News Bot

Chemung County Politics Open Chat

Recommended Posts

With several new members coming to the county legislature and some having stepped down, there's sure to be some changes. This is the spot to talk about this, as well as any and all things political in Chemung County including the City of Elmira. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to WENY News, the legislature voted to approve raises for themselves and other workers, but County Executive Moss vetoed it. Read more here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2022 at 11:27 AM, Chris said:

I'm interested to see who takes over as Chair.

The Agenda (here) for the Jan 1 inaugural meeting indicates the new Legislature will vote on Resolutions 23-001 to name Margeson as the new Chair, and 23-002 to name Sweet as Vice Chair. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

According to WENY News, the legislature voted to approve raises for themselves and other workers, but County Executive Moss vetoed it. Read more here. 

In the December 12 meeting (Minutes HERE), it was passed 10-4 (one absent).  So it seems like they'll have just enough to override the veto, unless a couple switch their votes. (Not likely unless it's retiring members who won't be affected either way)

image.png.36bfa26a7426d9cc0031f2fd22a61ed2.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait.....

1 hour ago, Chris said:

According to WENY News, the legislature voted to approve raises for themselves and other workers, but County Executive Moss vetoed it. Read more here. 

After reading all the minutes, I'm confused about what the Exec vetoed. 

The above linked Minutes show Local Law #5 (mentioned in the article) is separate from Resolution 22-660 shown above (that covers Legislative raises), and LL5 only applies to non-Legislative elected officials and a few others. 

It appears he vetoed Local Law # 5, which results in a zero raise for himself, but doesn't affect the Legislature pay?

 

image.thumb.png.0373e7bbdd4264ee0b46360b2711d5d5.png

image.png.7f4c8f03823ad548f10fee1ce3c6e575.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t believe any elected official should vote on their raises.  Why can’t this be put to a Public vote at Election time.  Added to the back of the ballot like other issues.  Specify 2, 3, 4% or no salary increase for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the majority of last night's standing committees concluded in THIS Part A video , the Personnel Committee was called to order, then went into Executive Session to discuss a "pending litigation on a personnel issue" before continuing with THIS Part B video

Once the meeting reconvened, the first resolution brought up was "Resolution establishing Term Limit Advisory Committee on behalf of the Chairman of the Chemung County Legislature"

Quote

 

Explain action needed or Position requested (justification):

The Chairman of the Legislature seeks to form a committee under Rule VII.E to study and review term limit plans that have been adopted at the County Level in New York State and whether such a plan should be considered in Chemung County.  The committee will consist of five (5) members, including a Chairperson thereof, appointed by the Chairman of the Legislature, and will report its findings to the Chairman.  The committee shall canvas counties that have adopted term limits for elected county officials, to include the specifics of the plan(s) adopted, the manner and timing of implementation, the county officials impacted, and the experiences of the impacted bodies/officials with the transition and operation of the plan(s). 

 

That Committee will be chaired by Burin and include men]mbers: Drake Sweet Saglibene and Strange. 

Burin also expressed his desire to re-visit hiring a consultant to examine the number of Legislators as well as the "form of government" (ie, elected Exec vs appointed Manager, etc)

 

Edited by MsKreed

Share this post


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

to discuss a "pending litigation on a personnel issue"

I suppose that could be anything, since I can't think of a major county controversy. At least nothing recent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the Term Limits Committee (and eventually, a Committee for changing county government structure) goes before the Full Legislature, I will be curious (and hopeful) to see if Chairman Margeson makes an effort to improve transparency and public inclusion, as he frequently advocated for as a Legislator.

 

For instance....when "Legislative Redistricting and Efficiency of County Government Operations Advisory Committee" was voted on at the Feb 8_ 2021 Full Legislature Meeting,  Mr. Margeson raised concerns regarding the Committee make-up. He suggested that the committee be comprised of four Legislators, two appointed by the Majority Leader and two appointed by the Minority Leader and four members of the public at large. 

Since it would have been a "substantial change" to the resolution, as written, he was not allowed to make a motion to include Public representation in that Committee....and his motion to postpone the resolution (as it was written) failed. 

Also, in that same meeting, Resolution 21-113 was presented to"officially" empower the Chair to accept/reject Agenda items.  Several members of the public spoke opposing it, and Sonsire pointed out that was just the sort of thing that could, and should, be examined in any discussion of "Efficiency of County Government" 

Margeson voted with Sonsire, Strange and McCarthy to indefinitely postpone Resolution 21-113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a Budget Committee and a Special Meeting of the Personnel Committee held last night

 Link HERE

The County Exec and some of his staff joined the meeting, and it would seem that Mr Pucci's first suggestion is not off to a good start.   

image.png.48b81468250c7e175bef3d9837977f39.png

In my opinion, the contentious bickering is coming from both sides. Perhaps a little more from Moss, since the Legislature "as a whole" includes some who do seem to be trying to open up more collaborative dialogue. 

Quick recap of a few disputes that were discussed (and not really resolved) lat night:

1) The FQHC funds have not been disbursed.  Moss & County Attorney aren't satisfied with the contract. On the other hand, there seems to be an unprofessional lack of communication from the  group supposed to receive the million dollars.

2) He's not implemented the "Orange Zone" relief plan. It's unclear to me who was/is supposed to outline the details on eligibility, etc.  And Moss doesn't seem to feel the Legislature has the power to pass a resolution "directing" him on how to conduct business.....basically saying that he doesn't serve at "the pleasure of" or "answer to" the Legislature.   

3) He's not implemented the Ag plan for ARP funds. Again, it's unclear to me who was/is supposed to outline the details on eligibility, etc..  It seems that Moss has communicated with the Farm Bureau. By all indications, the Farm Bureau (members) appears to have different priorities for that money than the Legislature's resolution to disburse funds (up to $5000k each) directly to "eligible" farmers. So it's also unclear who, if anyone, on the previous Legislature sat down with the intended recipients when the resolution was drafted and passed.

4) The Budget Committee approved a request to fund re-creating Director of Purchasing position. This was characterized by Moss and Chalk as a "formality" since the Charter specifically calls for such a position (I assume this will now go to full legislature for final passage of the resolution to allocate the money). However, since it "doesn't matter what they do" (as a formality).....the Personnel Committee did not approve a resolution actually re-creating the position itself. 

 

Edited by MsKreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Some of) the players change but the game remains the same. *sigh

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

(Some of) the players change but the game remains the same. *sigh

It appears that there are questions about what Charter says the Legislature can compel the Exec to take action on (ARP resolutions) and what the Exec can compel the Legislature to act on (re-creating a personnel item for a Director of Purchasing)......which Bryan Maggs and Hyder Hussain can't seem to clarify.  

 

This seems like a really strong case for appointing a Charter Revision Commission to codify more explicit language, at the very least......as well as to examine all the other issues that have been raised about Legislature size, term limits and government "efficiency" (structure).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS...

the left hand doesnt know or doesnt want to help the right hand finish jerkin' off so the business of the TAXPAYERS can actually be done!

does the County attorney represent the County or the Executive? how the hell is it that the motion was passed, the money approved and contract signed 1. without the Executive branch being included on the review process and 2. im curious if there is any penalty for breaching the contract if the Executive office blocks it?

have to give Smith credit, whether its the one or a different one, the FQHC ( by all ive read about them) could be of value to health and healthcare delivery in this area

and i guess to stick with the NSFW theme: regarding the Director position; the Exec is there swinging his tool around, the Legislature wants clarification as to the need; the reply because the charter says I can, you need to fund it is not a way to build cooperation. then when called out for it, denies that he's saying he can because he can.

this crap has got to stop, none of them, that partake in this behavior, are doing what their job is; protecting the Taxpayer and the funds we provide!

Edited by Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The county executive’s behavior has been a great disappointment  almost from his first day in office.

I dismissed his alleged behavior during his time as sheriff as just being something disgruntled employees would say. But now  I realize it’s just the way he is, a bully.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Diane said:

The county executive’s behavior has been a great disappointment  almost from his first day in office.

I dismissed his alleged behavior during his time as sheriff as just being something disgruntled employees would say. But now  I realize it’s just the way he is, a bully.

I agree.

A little maturity and negotiations skills could go a long way...instead of him writing off every member of the Legislature as if they are one homogenous unit.  

It’s true that some individual legislators have been as contentious as Moss at times, but they seem to be the minority. Most would likely have a one-on-one discussion with him where they could exchange ideas and concerns, etc. 

It seems like a possibility that if, for the sake of County residents' best interests, he talked and came to some common ground with most of them as individuals, then the few “never agree with Moss” legislators could potentially be overridden. Much more productive than subjecting the taxpayers to lawsuits.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised and confused about the Special Legislative meeting on Tuesday (2/21) to vo vote on a Resolution confirming the appointment of the Deputy County Executive.

Agenda HERE

image.png.422947a6248cd3462f936b2295da61ac.png

I have to wonder what happened to Sheen, and if it was a sudden decision to replace him.  One would think that as of November when she ran for Treasurer, voters would have been advised if she didn't intend to fulfill the term as Treasurer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does sound like a sudden decision.  I wonder if she can still be Treasurer or if that's a conflict of interest.  Perhaps some PR on the Execs part too.

She is smart and well liked. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say there's no way for her to hold both full time positions that are filled as Single Rate Salary. 

This may explain Moss's sudden need to fill the Purchasing Director position that's been empty for years......

It seems like a good move if the long term goal is to get her "in queue" to run for Exec in the future.....HOWEVER, with the Legislature already batting around ways to potentially replace elected Treasurer to a legislative appointed job, vacating the office immediately after being elected is only going to bolster the argument for those who want to install their own minion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sheen will apparently be holding a different position in County government....

Edited by Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very odd that Rodney replied, then deleted my comment about Furman being chosen.  His whole "Who Will It Be?" mystery is a little well....Strange.

It's publicly accessible information linked on the County Novus Agenda site.  Why the seemingly intentional effort to avoid disclosing it?

Share this post


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

Very odd that Rodney replied, then deleted my comment about Furman being chosen.  His whole "Who Will It Be?" mystery is a little well....Strange.

It's publicly accessible information linked on the County Novus Agenda site.  Why the seemingly intentional effort to avoid disclosing it?

yes, the way he posted it, it appeared like they were holding auditions for potential candidates...very wierd

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Screen Shot 2023-02-21 at 4.05.17 PM.png

 

So now that Furman is Deputy Executive, what is Mr. Sheen doing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris said:

Screen Shot 2023-02-21 at 4.05.17 PM.png

 

So now that Furman is Deputy Executive, what is Mr. Sheen doing?

may seem bit tin-foily, but with this appointment, and Mr. Sheen moving to another "position in County Government" i cannot help but feel this was all known back in November and voters have been Bamboozled?

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.


×
×
  • Create New...