Voters to decide on reducing terms of council members

Voters will be asked to decide this November whether or not the four-year terms of Town Board members should be reduced from four to two years, Town Board members informally agreed at their work session on Tuesday.

Discussing a petition signed by about 160 residents and submitted to the board last week by Richard Kelly, the four board members at the work session all said they’d support a vote on the question even though they did not necessarily favor a cutback in the term of council members.

If approved, the reduction would affect only council people elected after it would take effect in 2011.

Town Attorney Laury Dowd reported to the board that, after studying state law and what Mr. Kelly — a regular attendee and commenter at Town Board meetings and hearings — had submitted, his petition did not conform to the rules.

“This is not a valid petition in terms of format and signatures to force a referendum,” she said, but it is an indication of voter sentiment.

Although the board was not required to act on it, it “had the option” of adopting a local law at least 60 days before the November 8 general election to put the question on the ballot. That meant the board had to set a public hearing on the proposal by this Friday, August 19, its next formal meeting, and schedule a hearing and a vote on the proposal for the next formal meeting after that, on Friday, September 9.

Supervisor Jim Dougherty said he favored putting the question up for a public vote even if the board as a whole “would not be committing to anything.”

The matter reminded board and audience members alike of the tempest that erupted a year ago when some board members called for a vote on extending the supervisor’s term from two to four years.

“I was always in favor of putting it on the ballot,” said Councilman Glenn Waddington, an independent and Conservative party nominee who this year is seeking to oust Mr. Dougherty, a Democratic candidate, as supervisor. “Then it’s up to the pros and cons to argue it out before November.”

Councilman Ed Brown said he, too, was in favor of putting the question on the ballot but not of the proposal itself. He said a change in board members every two years could disrupt the continuity of the board’s overall operation. “It’s not good to have five new people on the board,” he said.

The last time a proposal to change a term came up, said Mr. Waddington, the debate on the issue was cloaked “in smoke and mirrors.” He said the board should just get the question on the ballot and let the public decide.

Councilman Peter Reich agreed to putting the matter on the ballot but said he was against the term reduction “for a whole bunch of reasons” that would be discussed at the public hearing on September 9.

He noted that he was the only councilman seeking reelection — Mr. Waddington might have been, but he’s banking on the supervisor’s post instead — so the term reduction would not affect him.  His position was “not self-serving,” he said.

TWO OTHER PETITIONS

Board members, on Ms. Dowd’s advice, rejected a second petition Mr. Kelly submitted last week with more than 160 signatures calling for a vote on whether or not the town should continue its limited “4-poster” program, placing five deer-feeding stations around the Island that use four vertical rollers to apply permethrin to deer to kill ticks on their heads and necks as they feed on corn.

Ms. Dowd said state law allowed public referenda on several issues — such as bonds, salaries and the terms of elected officials — but not on “advisory” matters to guide elected officials in their decisions.

Policy matters are “up to elected officials and can’t be put out for an advisory referendum” under state law, Ms. Dowd told the board.

A third petition submitted by Mr. Kelly last week, with about 90 signatures, asked the board to abandon its proposal to rewrite the zoning code’s rules on the extension, and discontinuance, of pre-existing, non-conforming business uses in residential zones.

Supervisor Dougherty told Mr. Kelly the board had “a bunch of interviews” to conduct in executive session so he hadn’t put it on the agenda of the board’s work session.

Last week he told Mr. Kelly the board would take the petition under advisement.