Full Text
CAYUGA COUNTY GOVERNMENT GOVERNANCE OPTIONS GERALD BENJAMIN – THE BENJAMIN CENTER – SUNY NEW PALTZ JULY, 2018 ---PAGE BREAK--- CHOOSING A GOVERNMENT FORM: CRITERIA • WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS AND EXPECTED GOVERNMENTAL ROLE IN MEETING THEM? • WHAT IS THE TONE AND CHARACTER OF OF CIVIC DISCOURSE/ DECISION MAKING? • WHAT IS THE CHARACTER OF YOUR COMMUNITY? • ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DIVERSITY, HOMOGENEITY • CLEAVAGES/COHESION • PARTISAN • GEOGRAPHIC • CULTURAL – LIFE STYLES • VALUES - IDEOLOGY ---PAGE BREAK--- FOCAL POINTS •LEGISLATIVE BRANCH •EXECUTIVE – NO CHARTER •EXECUTIVE – CHARTER ---PAGE BREAK--- GOVERNMENTAL DESIGN – BASIC MODELS SEPARATION OF POWERS/PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE AND LEGISLATIVE POPULARLY ELECTED • U.S. NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS • SOME CITIES AND COUNTIES – STRONG EXECUTIVE/MAYOR PARLIAMENTARY/LEGISLATIVE LEGISLATURE CHOOSES THE EXECUTIVE • MOST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: TOWNS, VILLAGES, SOME CITIES AND COUNTIES, SCHOOL DISTRICTS ---PAGE BREAK--- THE LEGISLATURE THE NY STATE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO HAVE: - LEGISLATIVE BODY ELECTIVE BY THE PEOPLE THEREOF…” IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE AN ELECTED EXECUTIVE ---PAGE BREAK--- INITIAL CHOICE: STATE LAW OR HOME RULE STATE LAW • COUNTIES IN NEW YORK STATE ARE STRUCTURED IN ACCORD WITH OPTIONS SET OUT IN THE STATE COUNTY AND ALTERNATIVE COUNTY GOVERNMENT LAWS, UNLESS THEY CHOOSE TO ADOPT A CHARTER. • CURRENTLY 34 COUNTIES, CAYUGA AMONG THEM, OPERATE UNDER STATE LAW. HOME RULE • THE OPTION OF ADOPTING A COUNTY CHARTER IS AVAILABLE TO COUNTIES UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION (ARTICLE IX). • EARLIER COUNTY CHARTERS WERE PROVIDED UNDER SPECIAL ACT OF THE LEGISLATURE (NASSAU, WESTCHESTER) • CURRENTLY 23 COUNTIES OPERATE WITH CHARTERS ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTIES WITHOUT CHARTERS IN NYS EMPLOY LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS TWO ALTERNATIVES: • BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS • 16 COUNTIES IN 2017 • UNTIL 1970 - CAYUGA – 33 MEMBERS • LEGISLATURE • 18 COUNTIES IN 2017 • 1971 – CAYUGA – 21 MEMBERS • 1992 – CAYUGA – 15 MEMBERS • RESPONSE TO U.S. SUPREME COURT DECISION REQUIRING ONE-PERSON-ONE VOTE (1964): • WEIGHTED VOTING FOR BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS • CREATION OF LEGISLATURES • SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS • MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS • WEIGHTED VOTING ---PAGE BREAK--- UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE • IN DECISIONS MADE IN 1962 (BAKER V. CARR) AND 1964 (WESBERY V. SANDERS, REYNOLDS V. SIMS) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT MADE CLEAR THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS TO BE “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL IN POPULATION.” (XIV AMENDMENT) • IN 1968 THIS PRINCIPLE WAS EXTENDED BY THE COURT TO APPLY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (AVERY V. MIDLAND COUNTY) 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- RESPONSE OF CAYUGA COUNTY – EVOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE STRUCTURE • 1969 – WEIGHTED VOTING ADOPTED FOR A BOARD OF SUPERVISORS WITH 33 MEMBERS – • ONE MEMBER FOR EACH TOWN • ONE MEMBER FOR EACH OF TEN WARDS IN THE CITY OF AUBURN • WEIGHTED VOTING – EFFECTIVE VOTING POWER • 1970 - ATTEMPTS TO CREATE A 19 MEMBER OR 23 MEMBER LEGISLATURE FAILED • 1971 – 21 MEMBER LEGISLATURE CREATED – • SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS – 12 FROM TOWNS, 9 FROM CITY OF AUBURN • WEIGHTED VOTING RETAINED • 1992 – REDUCE LEGISLATURE TO 15 MEMBERS • SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS – 9 TOWN, 6 CITY • RETAIN WEIGHTED VOTING ---PAGE BREAK--- SIZE OF THE LEGISLATURE • CAYUGA REDUCED SIZE BY MORE THAN HALF OVER LAST HALF-CENTURY • MADISON – FEDERALIST #5 – NO OBJECTIVE STANDARD FOR LEGISLATURE SIZE • RANGE FOR NY COUNTIES IS 7 (ORLEANS) TO 39 (ALBANY) • USE OF BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DIMINISHES DISCRETION RE: SIZE • CONSIDERATIONS • SIZE OF DELIBERATIVE BODY • REQUIREMENTS OF COMMITTEE SYSTEM • DISTRICT POPULATION • COST • COTERMINALITY OF BOUNDARIES • WEIGHTED VOTING ADDS OPTIONS • REMOVES SIZE OF BODY/SIZE OF DISTRICT TRADEOFF • ADDS FLEXIBILITY FOR TREATMENT OF CITIES ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGISLATURE + WEIGHTED VOTING COMBINATION IN CAYUGA COUNTY IS UNUSUAL ---PAGE BREAK--- WEIGHTED VOTING – EXAMPLE - BUSINESS VOTING STRENGTH VARIES WITH OWNERSHIP SHARE ---PAGE BREAK--- WEIGHTED VOTING – EXAMPLE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE ---PAGE BREAK--- ADVANTAGES OF WEIGHTED VOTING IN COUNTIES • MEETS CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS • ALLOWS USE OF EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES • COMMUNITY • SIMPLICITY • ACCOUNTABILITY • REQUIRES NO REDISTRICTING, AND THEREFORE AVOIDS GERRYMANDERING • MAY PROVIDE SOME FLEXIBILITY ON SIZE OF BODY • IN BOARD OF SUPERVISOR SYSTEMS – ASSURES CLOSE LINK BETWEEN COUNTY AND TOWN GOVERNMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- DISADVANTAGES OF WEIGHTED VOTING IN COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS • COMPLEXITY • NO PRIORITY TO OVERALL COUNTY INTEREST – HORSE-TRADING POLITICS • COUNTERINTUITIVE – “SOMETHING’S WRONG HERE” • TAKES NO ACCOUNT OF MANY DIMENSIONS OF REPRESENTATION • DOES NOT CONSIDER EFFECT OF LONG-TERM COALITIONS • DOES NOT CONSIDER “UNITE DOMINATION” • CAN’T BE USED IN COMMITTEES • OVER VALUES LOCALISM/PAROCHIALISM ---PAGE BREAK--- MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHARTER FROM 15 SUPERVISORS AND WEIGHTED VOTING TO 9 SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS “YOU HAD A CERTAIN GROUP OF SUPERVISORS WHO, WHEN THEY VOTED TOGETHER, CONTROLLED EVERYTHING. YOU CAN’T HAVE 10 TO 15 SUPERVISORS RUNNING THE COUNTY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE ONE PERSON IN CHARGE.” TERRY BIENIEK – MONTGOMERY COUNTY LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND A PART-TIME ADMINISTRATOR CONTRIBUTED TO DYSFUNCTION AND “PAROCHIAL FIGHTING” ALONG TOWN LINES THAT STALLED CAPITAL PROJECTS AND HURT PROGRESS. MATT OSSENFORT -MONTGOMERY COUNTY EXECUTIVE ---PAGE BREAK--- DETERMINING WEIGHTS ---PAGE BREAK--- FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS NOT FULLY CONSISTENT PROPORTIONAL TO POPULATION STANDARD USED BY U.S. SUPREME COURT – UNIT OF ANALYSIS IS PERSON • WHITCOM V. CHAVIS (1971) – CONCERNING USE OF MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS – “MATHEMATICAL QUAGMIRE” • BOARD OF ESTIMATE V. MORRIS (1989) CONSIDERATION OF VOTING POWER STANDARD REQUIRED BY NYS COURT OF APPEALS UNIT OF ANALYSIS IS THE LEGISLATOR • IANNUCCI V. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (1967) “[A]…LEGISLATOR’S VOTING POWER, MEASURED BY THE MATHEMATICAL PROBABILITY OF HIS CASTING THE DECISIVE VOTE, MUST APPROXIMATE THE POWER HE WOULD HAVE IN A LEGISLATIVE BODY WHICH DID NOT EMPLOY WEIGHTED VOTING ---PAGE BREAK--- NASSAU COUNTY(1964) – WEIGHTS BASED ON POPULATION ONLY SOURCE TUESDAYS/ IN 1964, THE NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS USED A WEIGHTED VOTING SYSTEM. THERE WERE 5 TOWNS ( 6 DISTRICTS ) GIVEN WEIGHTS BASED ON POPULATION SIZE: 31 – HEMPSTEAD #1 31 – HEMPSTEAD #2 28 – OYSTER BAY 21 – NORTH HEMPSTEAD 2 – LONG BEACH 2 – GLEN COVE THERE WERE 115 VOTES IN ALL; 58 VOTES WERE NEEDED TO PASS A PROPOSAL. • EACH DISTRICT CAN EITHER BE IN A COALITION OR NOT. AS THERE ARE 2 CHOICES FOR 6 DISTRICTS, THERE ARE 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 X 2 = 64 CASES TO CONSIDER. • THE END RESULT IS THIS POWER DISTRIBUTION: • 1/3 – HEMPSTEAD #1 (31 VOTES) 1/3 – HEMPSTEAD #2 (31 VOTES) 1/3 – OYSTER BAY (28 VOTES) 0 – NORTH HEMPSTEAD (21 VOTES) 0 – LONG BEACH (2 VOTES) 0 – GLEN COVE (2 VOTES) • THE 3 SMALLEST DISTRICTS REPRESENTED ABOUT 16% OF THE COUNTY’S POPULATION, BUT THEY ENDED UP WITH 0% OF THE VOTING POWER. ---PAGE BREAK--- NASSAU – HAD TO ADJUST WEIGHTS TO ASSURE REPRESENTATIVES OF SMALLEST DISTRICTS HAD SOME VOTING POWER • AFTER DECADES OF LEGAL BATTLES, NASSAU IN THE 1990S ENDED UP WITH A WEIGHTED VOTING SYSTEM OF [65; 30; 28, 22, 15, 7, 6] TO ASSURE SOME DECISION-MAKING POWER RESIDED IN SMALLER DISTRICTS. • THE SMALLEST HAD 1/52, THE NEXT 3/52, AND THE THIRD LARGEST 9/52 OF THE VOTING POWER. ---PAGE BREAK--- NYC – MORRIS V. BOARD OF ESTIMATE "[I]T MAY BE THAT IN TERMS OF ASSURING FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION, THE EQUAL PROTECTION APPROACH REFLECTED IN THE REYNOLDS V. SIMS LINE OF CASES IS ITSELF IMPERFECT, BUT IT DOES ASSURE THAT LEGISLATORS WILL BE ELECTED BY, AND REPRESENT CITIZENS IN, DISTRICTS OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL SIZE. IT DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO INQUIRE WHETHER, IN TERMS OF HOW THE LEGISLATURE ACTUALLY WORKS IN PRACTICE, THE DISTRICTS HAVE EQUAL POWER TO AFFECT A LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME. THIS WOULD BE A DIFFICULT AND EVER-CHANGING TASK, AND ITS CHALLENGE IS HARDLY MET BY A MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION THAT ITSELF STOPS SHORT OF EXAMINING THE ACTUAL DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY" JUSTICE WHITE. (489 U.S. AT 699, 109 S.CT. AT 1441) ---PAGE BREAK--- WEIGHTED VOTING OVERTURNED IN NASSAU JACKSON V. NASSAU COUNTY BD. OF SUP'RS., 818 F. SUPP. 509 (E.D.N.Y. 1993) • “WHAT IS CLEAR FROM THESE EXCERPTS, AND WHAT THE DEFENDANTS SEEK TO MINIMIZE, IS THAT THE SUPREME COURT FIRMLY REJECTED WEIGHTED VOTING, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE MATHEMATICAL QUAGMIRE SUCH A SYSTEM ENGENDERS, BUT JUST AS IMPORTANTLY BECAUSE THE METHODOLOGY FAILS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER CRITICAL FACTORS RELATED TO THE ACTUAL DAILY OPERATIONS OF A GOVERNING BODY. THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE SUPREME COURT TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS NOT ONLY A PREFERENCE, BUT A DIRECTIVE THAT LEGISLATORS BE ELECTED BY AND REPRESENT CITIZENS IN DISTRICTS OF SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL SIZE.” JUDGE ARTHUR D. SPATT – U.S. DISTRICT COURT ---PAGE BREAK--- ALTERNATIVES TO WEIGHTED VOTING OPTIONS • SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS • MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTS • COMBINED SYSTEMS • PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION OPTIONS • AT-LARGE • WITH DISTRICTS CONSIDERATIONS • FAMILIARITY & “COMFORT” • EQUAL FORMAL STRENGTH IN LEGISLATURE & RESOURCES FOR RANGE OF REPRESENTATIVE TASKS • OVERLAPPING JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES • REDISTRICTING & GERRYMANDER RISK • COMPLEXITY WITH 4 YEAR TERM ---PAGE BREAK--- IF SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS ARE ADOPTED, THEN DECENNIAL REDISTRICTING IS REQUIRED ---PAGE BREAK--- UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE • IN DECISIONS MADE IN 1962 (BAKER V. CARR) AND 1964 (WESBERY V. SANDERS, REYNOLDS V. SIMS) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT MADE CLEAR THAT THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION REQUIRES LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS TO BE “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL IN POPULATION.” (XIV AMENDMENT) • IN 1968 THIS PRINCIPLE WAS EXTENDED BY THE COURT TO APPLY TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (AVERY V. MIDLAND COUNTY) 25 ---PAGE BREAK--- THE FEDERAL VOTING RIGHTS ACT • THIS LAW, FIRST PASSED IN 1965 AND MOST RECENTLY RENEWED FOR 25 YEARS IN 2006, WAS DESIGNED TO OUTLAW DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING PROCEDURES. • IT PROHIBITS ANY "VOTING QUALIFICATION OR PREREQUISITE TO VOTING, OR STANDARD, PRACTICE, OR PROCEDURE TO DENY OR ABRIDGE THE RIGHT OF ANY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES TO VOTE ON ACCOUNT OF RACE OR COLOR.” 26 ---PAGE BREAK--- HOW AND WHO? NON- CHARTER COUNTIES • SPECIFIED IN STATE LAW CHARTER COUNTIES • SPECIFIED IN CHARTER • (E.G. ULSTER COUNTY) ---PAGE BREAK--- “POPULATION” AS THE BASIS FOR REDISTRICTING • FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES THE BASIS OF DISTRICTING TO BE “POPULATION”, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT • NEW YORK STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT • “THE TERM ‘POPULATION’ SHALL MEAN RESIDENTS, CITIZENS, OR REGISTERED VOTERS.” 28 ---PAGE BREAK--- WHAT IS THE DATA? • THE DECENNIAL NATIONAL CENSUS PROVIDES NEW POPULATION DATA FOR EACH MUNICIPALITY, PROVIDING BOTH THE NECESSITY AND THE MEANS TO DETERMINE IF FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS ARE STILL BEING MET IN THAT PLACE. • NEW YORK STATE LAW REQUIRES USE OF “THE LATEST STATISTICAL INFORMATION OBTAINABLE FROM AN OFFICIAL ENUMERATION DONE AT THE SAME TIME FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS, CITIZENS, OR REGISTERED VOTERS.” 29 ---PAGE BREAK--- STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FEDERAL COURTS AND “EQUALITY” • FEDERAL COURTS REQUIRE NEAR ABSOLUTE NUMERICAL EQUALITY IN THE POPULATION OF U.S. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS • COURTS ARE MORE PERMISSIVE WITH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, GENERALLY ALLOWING VARIATION WITHIN A RANGE OF PLUS OR MINUS 5 PERCENTAGE POINTS FROM THE MEAN DISTRICT/WARD POPULATION 30 ---PAGE BREAK--- STANDARDS AND CRITERIA NEW YORK STATE LAW • NEW YORK STATE (MHRL SECTION 10.13.C.) REQUIRES THAT A LOCALITY DOING REDISTRICTING MUST, IN THIS ORDER OF PRIORITY, CREATE DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR: • “SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL WEIGHT FOR THE POPULATION” • DIVIDE NO TOWN EXCEPT IF 110% OF A FULL RATIO • “SUBSTANTIALLY FAIR AND EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS ORGANIZED IN POLITICAL PARTIES” • DISTRICTS OF “CONVENIENT AND CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY” 31 ---PAGE BREAK--- GUIDING RULES: QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNTY • WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REDISTRICTING? • THE BOARD • A COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE BOARD • WHAT CRITERIA DOES THE COUNTY WISH TO ADD TO THOSE REQUIRED BY THE NATIONAL STATE CONSTITUTIONS AND NATIONAL AND STATE LAW? E.G. PRESERVING “COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST” E.G. HONORING LONG-ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD BOUNDARIES. E.G. TAKING ACCOUNT OF ADMINISTRATIVE NEEDS OF THE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS 32 ---PAGE BREAK--- THE EXECUTIVE FUNCTION ---PAGE BREAK--- IN COUNTIES OPERATING UNDER STATE LAW WITH LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS ---PAGE BREAK--- THE FIVE EXECUTIVE OPTIONS FOR COUNTIES WITH LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS OPERATING UNDER STATE LAW • THE LEGISLATIVE CHAIR, ELECTED BY HIS OR HER PEERS, ACTS AS ADMINISTRATOR • THE LEGISLATURE APPOINTS AN ADMINISTRATOR • THE LEGISLATURE APPOINTS A DIRECTOR • THE LEGISLATURE APPOINTS A MANAGER • THE PEOPLE ELECT A “PRESIDENT” ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY CHAIR AS ADMINISTRATOR • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY APPOINT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AS COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR, WHO SHALL PERFORM THE DUTIES OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CONCURRENTLY WITH THOSE OF CHAIRMAN BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. • THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR MAY, WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LOCAL LAW, SERVE AS THE HEAD OF ONE OR MORE DEPARTMENTS NOT ADMINISTERED BY AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. • THE CHAIR AS ADMINISTRATOR APPOINTS THE PURCHASING AGENT ---PAGE BREAK--- ADMINISTRATOR AS EXECUTIVE • APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO SERVE DURING THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR WHICH THE MEMBERS OF SUCH BOARD THEN IN OFFICE WERE ELECTED. • VACANCIES SHALL BE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE TERM OF OFFICE FOR WHICH THE MEMBERS OF SUCH BOARD THEN IN OFFICE WERE ELECTED. ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY MANAGER • THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPOINTS THE COUNTY MANAGER • HE OR SHE SERVES DURING THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. • DURING HIS OR HER TERM OF OFFICE HE OR SHE SHALL RESIDE WITHIN THE COUNTY. • NO MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SHALL, DURING THE TERM FOR WHICH HE OR SHE WAS ELECTED, BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT AS COUNTY MANAGER. • THE COUNTY MANAGER APPOINTS, SUPERVISES AND AT PLEASURE REMOVES EVERY OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND EMPLOYEE OF THE COUNTY EXCEPT THOSE ELECTED BY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR SUBORDINATES, • THE COUNTY MANAGER MAY, WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LOCAL LAW, SERVE WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AS THE HEAD OF ONE OR MORE DEPARTMENTS NOT ADMINISTERED BY AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY DIRECTOR • APPOINTED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS. • THE TERM OF OFFICE IS FOUR YEARS • VACANCIES OCCURRING OTHERWISE THAN BY EXPIRATION OF TERM FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR THE UNEXPIRED PORTION OF THE TERM. • MAY SERVE AS THE HEAD OF ONE OR MORE DEPARTMENTS NOT ADMINISTERED BY AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY PRESIDENT • . THE COUNTY PRESIDENT IS ELECTED. • THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PRESIDENT FIRST ELECTED IS THREE YEARS. • SUCCESSORS SERVE FOR TERMS OF FOUR YEARS. • VACANCIES ARE FILLED BY APPOINTMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS UNTIL THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE CALENDAR YEAR NEXT SUCCEEDING THE FIRST GENERAL ELECTION AT WHICH THE VACANCY MAY BE FILLED. • THE COUNTY PRESIDENT MAY, WHEN AUTHORIZED BY LOCAL LAW, SERVE AS THE HEAD OF ONE OR MORE DEPARTMENTS NOT ADMINISTERED BY AN ELECTIVE OFFICIAL BUT WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE DUTIES DEFINED: • CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR. • BUDGET OFFICER . • REPORTS TO BOARD ON CONDITION OF GOVERNMENT, NEEDED ACTIONS. • ENFORCE THE LAWS • ASSURE FINANCIAL PROBITY • ADDITIONAL DUTIES AS ASSIGNED BY THE BOARD. • ATTEND BOARD MEETINGS AT WILL OR ON REQUEST • WHEN DELEGATED TO HIM OR HER BY COUNTY ACT, • COORDINATE AND UNIFY THE MANAGEMENT OF COUNTY AFFAIRS • TO REQUIRE AUDITS AS NEEDED AND REPORT RESULTS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, AND • TO SUPERVISE THE ADMINISTRATION OF ALL FUNCTIONS TRANSFERRED TO THE COUNTY FROM OTHER UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING THESE TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN LEGISLATIVE SYSTEMS – DEGREES OF AUTONOMY AND POWER • PRESIDING OFFICER/ADMINISTRATOR • PART TIME • LIMITED LEGAL AUTHORITY • LEGITIMACY ARISING FROM ELECTION • APPOINTED ADMINISTRATOR • LIMITED LEGAL AUTHORITY • SERVES FOR TERM OF LEGISLATURE • PROFESSIONAL MANAGER • APPOINTED MANAGER • POWER TO HIRE AND FIRE • SERVES AT BOARD’S PLEASURE • PROFESSIONAL MANAGER • DIRECTOR • APPOINTED FIXED TERM • ELECTED PRESIDENT • FOUR YEAR TERM, NO LIMIT • VETO POWER IN GENERAL: • FORMAL POWERS OF EACH FORM SPECIFIED IN STATE LAW • POINTS OF DIFFERENCE DEGREE OF SECURITY IN OFFICE, APPOINTING POWER INDEPENDENCE FROM LEGISLATIVE BRANCH • STATE LAW MAY BE AUGMENTED BY LOCAL LAW (E.G. REMOVAL OF APPOINTEE) • INFORMAL POWERS POLITICAL BASE OF CHAIRMAN LONGEVITY COMMUNITY ROOTEDNESS ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE FUNCTION COUNTIES WITH BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS/LEGISLATURES Executive Function/Counties with Boards of Supervisors or Legislatures B o S Legislature Total Presiding Officer (Chair) 7 3 10 Appointed Administrator 7 11 18 Appointed Manager 2 4 6 Appointed Director 0 0 0 Elected President 0 0 0 Total 16 18 34 ---PAGE BREAK--- THE COUNTY MANAGER SYSTEM 44 Department Heads Legislature Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- THE COUNCIL-MANAGER PLAN IS A PROGRESSIVE-ERA SYSTEM DEVELOPED ON THE CORPORATE MODEL • COUNCIL IS “BOARD OF DIRECTORS” • MAKES POLICY • OVERSEES PERFORMANCE • RESPONSIBLE TO “STOCKHOLDERS” (VOTERS) • MANAGER IS “CEO” WHO: • APPOINTS DEPARTMENT HEADS • PREPARES BUDGET • DIRECTS DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS • RECOMMENDS POLICY • IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE BOARD FOR GOVERNMENT’S PERFORMANCE • BUT IS NOT ABOARD MEMBER 45 ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE FUNCTION IN COUNTIES OPERATING WITH CHARTERS ---PAGE BREAK--- THE CHARTER COUNTIES ---PAGE BREAK--- CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARTER COUNTIES • MORE URBAN AND SUBURBAN • MORE POPULOUS • MORE DEMOGRAPHICALLY DIVERSE • BIGGER BUDGETS AND (OFTEN) MORE DIVERSE FUNCTIONS • LARGE CONCENTRATION IN SOUTHERN NEW YORK ---PAGE BREAK--- WHY A CHARTER? • THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE • LOCAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM IN ACCORD WITH LOCAL PREFERENCES • TERM LIMITATION • REDISTRICTING • CAMPAIGN FINANCE • BUDGET PROCESS • CHANGE MIX OF ELECTIVE OFFICES AND FUNCTIONS • COMPTROLLER • POLICING • INTERGOVERNMENTAL DYNAMICS • A “HYBRID” SYSTEM ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE FUNCTION – COUNTIES WITH CHARTERS Executive Function - Counties With Charters Counties Elected Executive 18 Manager 3 Administrator 2 Total 23 ---PAGE BREAK--- THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE SYSTEM 51 Voters Executive Legislature 4 Department Heads ---PAGE BREAK--- THE ELECTED EXECUTIVE SYSTEM • MODELED ON NATIONAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT • A FULL SEPARATION OF POWERS SYSTEM • VOTERS ELECT THE EXECUTIVE AND VEST HIM OR HER WITH “EXECUTIVE” POWERS • VOTERS ELECT A BOARD, AND VEST IT WITH LEGISLATIVE POWERS • EXECUTIVE HAS NO VOTE IN THE LEGISLATURE 52 ---PAGE BREAK--- MONTGOMERY COUNTY CHARTER – EXECUTIVE POWERS CHARTER_FORMS/MONTGOMERY%20COUNTY%20ADOPTED%20CHARTER.PDF ---PAGE BREAK--- SYSTEMS COMPARED ---PAGE BREAK--- ELECTED EXECUTIVE – AND WEAKNESSES • LOCAL - ROOTED AND HIGHLY VISIBLE IN COMMUNITY AS A PERSON IN CHARGE • ENTERS WITH A SUPPORTIVE POLITICAL COALITION • PROGRAM ADVANCED AND TESTED IN ELECTORAL PROCESS • KNOWN AND NETWORKED IN THE STATE/LOCAL SYSTEM • GREATER DISCIPLINE IN SYSTEM • GOOD FOR POLITICAL “CAREER LADDER” IN COMMUNITY WEAKNESSES • MAY BE UNTRAINED AND UNTESTED IN ADMINISTRATION OF A LARGE ORGANIZATION • ENTERS WITH PARTISAN ADVERSARIES • CONSENSUAL APPROACH MAY BE CHALLENGING – PERMANENT ADVERSARIES • POWER TOO CONCENTRATED • SHORT-TERM THINKING • PREOCCUPATION WITH RE-ELECTION AFFECTS PRIORITIES, NEXT POLITICAL STEP • ENTRENCHMENT IN OFFICE • PERSONAL POLITICAL INTEREST AND PUBLIC INTEREST MAY NOT ALIGN ---PAGE BREAK--- ELECTED EXECUTIVES SERVE MULTIPLE TERMS Length of Service - Sitting NYS County Executives # of Terms # of Executives 1 or fewer 4 2 ( elected or in progress) 9 3 or more 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPOINTED EXECUTIVE – AND WEAKNESSES • HIRED WITH SPECIFIED CREDENTIALS • AVOIDS CONCENTRATING POLITICAL POWER • PROFESSIONALLY TRAINED AND – LIKELY – SOME EXPERIENCE IN MANAGING LARGE PUBLIC ENTITIES • LONGER TERM THINKING ENCOURAGED • NETWORKED REGIONALLY AND NATIONALLY, AWARE OF BEST PRACTICES • BEST IN MORE CONSENSUAL, LOWER CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTS • CAN BUILD INFORMAL COMMUNITY BASE WEAKNESSES • NO POLITICAL BASE – LESS VISIBLY IN CHARGE • SECURITY DEPENDENT ON PERSISTENCE OF SUPPORTING LEGISLATIVE COALITION • NO LOCAL LOYALTY, ROOTEDNESS • CONTINUITY - NATIONAL PROFESSION - CAREER ADVANCES THROUGH MOVEMENT • MORE LIKELY TO BE BYPASSED –UNDERMINED (LINKED TO DEGREE OF FORMAL AUTHORITY) ---PAGE BREAK--- THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND THE “EXECUTIVE FUNCTION” CHOICE APPOINTED EXECUTIVE • ISSUES: • LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE CHAIRS, AND POLICY/ADMINISTRATION DICHOTOMY • CREDIT TAKING BY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MORALE • RELATED TO: • LEADERSHIP SUPPORT • PARTISAN ENVIRONMENT • DECISION-MAKING STYLE IN LEGISLATURE • FORMAL POWERS OF APPOINTEE ELECTED EXECUTIVE • COOPTATION – DIVIDING AND CONQUERING • PART-TIME LEGISLATURE, FULL-TIME EXECUTIVE • LOSS OF CONTROL OF/ACCESS TO KEY STAFFERS . MINIMAL STAFF SUPPORT • DIFFICULTY IN GENERATING INSTITUTIONAL LOYALTY AMONG MEMBERS • POORLY UNDERSTOOD LEGISLATIVE ROLE AFTER TRANSITION • UNFAMILIARITY WITH OPTIMIZING USE OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS ---PAGE BREAK--- OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ---PAGE BREAK--- OTHER COUNTYWIDE ELECTED OFFICES COUNTYWIDE OFFICES • “JUDICIAL” • DA • JUDGES (COUNTY, FAMILY, SURROGATE) • CLERK • NOT “JUDICIAL” • SHERRIFF • TREASURER • CORONER CHANGING FROM ELECTIVE TO APPOINTIVE COUNTYWIDE OFFICES • “THE OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER, IN A COUNTY WHERE THE OFFICE WOULD OTHERWISE BE ELECTIVE, OR ANY ELECTIVE COUNTY OFFICE THAT IS BEING CONTINUED EXCEPT THAT OF A SUPERVISOR OR A JUDICIAL OFFICER, MAY BE MADE APPOINTIVE BY PROVISION THEREFOR IN THE PETITION OR RESOLUTION BY WHICH AN ALTERNATIVE FORM OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT OR A CHANGE IN SUCH A FORM IS INITIATED AND BY VOTE OF THE PEOPLE.” ---PAGE BREAK--- QUESTIONS? 61 ---PAGE BREAK--- CONTACT ME: GERALD BENJAMIN THE BENJAMIN CENTER – SUNY NEW PALTZ 1 HAWK DRIVE NEW PALTZ, NEW YORK 12561 [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED]