Voters and Incumbents – The Town Council

The Clarkstown Town Council has been the arena of entrenched incumbents; they have won re-election time after time. Given that reality, the primary decision each voter must consider on Election Day is whether the incumbents merit re-election. As one incumbent said, the only term limits of which she approves are those enforced at the ballot box.

Not every citizen has time to observe the operations of the Town Council, but I have done so. After one meeting I was puzzled by the lack of discussion of substantive matters being voted upon. Although the members of the Town Council are careful to abide by the letter of the Open Meetings Law, they are not abiding by its spirit to carry out their deliberations in public. There have been some exceptions, but many issues are handled individually “off-line” and out of the public view.

After observing for a time, I have spent over a year engaging the incumbents concerning their duties. I find that the Town Council has an egregiously bad record with regard to its primary responsibilities - to set policy and to ensure that policies are followed.

The Council has failed to exercise proper oversight of Town operations. For example, when they considered the engagement of Mr. Jay Savino to handle certain tax matters for the Town, the Town Council voted on a resolution drafted by the Town Attorney. I questioned the procedures described in the resolution. The resolution described how Mr. Savino’s proposal had been selected from among competing proposals. So I submitted a Freedom of Information Law request for his proposal and the competing proposals. The Office of Town Attorney responded that it did not keep a copy of his winning proposal. I was provided two competing proposals that were dated the day of the vote on the resolution – it had been prepared days earlier. Furthermore, the text of one of those proposals showed knowledge of Mr. Savino’s proposal. All of these indicated inappropriate procedures, and also misrepresentation in the draft resolution put before the Town Council and provided to the public. When I brought this matter to the Council, the members responded with – no action.

The inappropriate procedures in the Office of Town Attorney with regard to Mr. Savino indicated deeper issues in that Office. So I proposed that the Council’s responsibility for oversight would be best served by an audit of the Office of Town Attorney. All the members of the Town Council refused to consider it.

I have raised issues about oversight of ethical standards in Town government. For example, in light of ethical issues arising out of a taped confrontation between elected officials and employees, a matter which has been much discussed elsewhere, I proposed to the Town Council that it should enact an ethics policy originally suggested in 1989 prohibiting town employees from concurrently serving as an official or a representative in a political party. The response to this proposal was silence – not even a consideration in a workshop session.

In addition I brought to the attention of the Town Council the actions of Deputy Town Attorney Jeffrey Millman, who failed to see a conflict of interest when he was in court challenging ballot petitions for the office of Supervisor, the elected office to which he reports. When the issue was first raised, Supervisor Gromack promised to have it researched. When it was raised a month later, Mr. Gromack refused to answer any questions about it and, although challenged, adjourned the meeting to confirm his refusal to answer. The rest of the Town Council affirmed that action with a unanimous vote.

I have been asking tough questions about the Town Council’s primary responsibilities. Over time, not only have the members of the Town Council not reflected on their duty, but they have also increasingly restricted time for comments and questions. First, they cut out comment time that was customary at the workshop sessions. Second they began to answer questions more selectively. They ended up by refusing to answer some questions at all. The performance of the incumbents on Town Council with regard to oversight is abysmal.

The Town Council’s next responsibility, to oversee the Town finances, has been poor. The broader information about deficit budgets and the current insolvency of the Town have already been widely featured in other forums. The incumbents have spoken about the need to deal with debt, but the reality is that we need to deal with debt because they voted to increase the debt greatly.

Another way to illustrate the Town Council’s fiscal irresponsibility is their treatment of their own salaries.  When the salary schedule for 2013 was published, the Supervisor and all the members of the Town Council were to receive a 2% raise. When I questioned this in light of the lower increase in Social Security and limited or negative income growth for many taxpayers in the Town, I was told that since the negotiated raise in the union contract was 2% it was decided that the elected officials should get a 2% increase as well. Now I find out that the Town Council is proposing again to vote itself and all elected officials another 2% increase for next year even though the Social Security increase is even less than this past year. Because of a legal requirement to give public notice, the Journal News this past Monday carried a legal notice from the Town of Clarkstown (page 10A) indicating that the Town Council is going to meet on Thursday November 7 (two days after the election) and are going to increase the salaries of all elected officials.

Furthermore, the same notice shows that the much touted great savings from the elimination of the Receiver of Taxes is false. According to the plan, the newly combined position will have the salary of the former Receiver of Taxes with a 2% increase. It is the Town Clerk’s position that has been eliminated. That the Town Council is prepared to provide the new incumbent in the post with the full pay of a person with many years seniority and a 2% increase indicates a failure of proper fiscal oversight.

There has been discussion about the extravagant sums spent on the walkway around Congers Lake at the same time that schools are crumbling. Although the Town Council does not budget for the schools, its members have failed to recognize that it is one taxpayer wallet from which the funds come. Taxpayers are much less likely to be willing to provide tax revenue for school repair when their Town tax bill is so high. The failure in oversight of the budget in the Town does have an impact on the taxpayers’ ability to fund school repairs. The incumbents’ oversight of the budget has been poor.

Finally, individual incumbents have tackled other issues. Stephanie Hausner has worked on housing issues. George Hoehmann has worked on energy initiatives and accessibility. Voters must measure these accomplishments against their failure in their primary duties. Supervisor Gromack bears responsibility for the overall leadership of the Town. Though he enjoyed cutting the ribbon on the walkway in his own hamlet of Congers, he has failed to provide leadership in professional and ethical standards.

On Election Day the voters have the power to decide whether the incumbents merit re-election, or whether to impose term limits on them. These may be generally nice people, but our job as voters is to assess whether they have fulfilled the duties and responsibilities of their office. The fact that all of the incumbents appear on the lines of the minor parties is a matter for further concern, as already discussed in First-Time Voters – Multiple-Party Illusion. Consider these matters carefully and exercise your good judgment.