Editorial: Council terms
Shelter Island voters must remember to turn over their paper ballots when they vote on November 8 at the school. That’s where they’ll find a proposition asking them to vote “Yes” or “No” on changing the term of councilpersons from four years to two. A “Yes” vote means let’s cut back the council term by half; a “No” means let’s keep things as they are.
Shelter Islanders should vote “No.” This proposal, which came out of left field, is a pointless distraction during an important campaign season. Its key proponent, resident Richard Kelly, collected more than 160 signatures on a petition calling for the vote but that doesn’t mean it reflects a real groundswell of support. Many people, in fact, are scratching their heads wondering why this has come up at all.
It appears the proposal reflects the frustration of a certain constituency that sees the Town Board as an evil force working against them, creating rules to ruin their businesses. They want to keep councilmembers’ feet to the fire with the option to fire them every two years instead of enduring them for four.
The Apple-Pie-and-Motherhood line is that a two-year term is more “democratic. ” It makes officeholders more hard-working and attentive. And if they do a good job, they have nothing to fear; only those who do a bad job would have any reason to oppose giving voters the chance to boot them in half the time.
One problem with that argument is defining a “bad” job. Good leaders sometimes must make decisions that aren’t popular. Giving councilpeople four-year terms gives them a little breathing room to do the right thing.
Every member of the Town Board opposes cutting the council term and so does every candidate running for a council seat. They all cite the issue of continuity. The town needs at least a few people on the board who have learned all the nuts and bolts of how the town runs. If all board members had contiguous two-year terms, the entire Town Board could be tossed out in some passing political storm.
Just stagger the terms, proponents say. Even if that could be done under state law, the most experienced board members might have only one more year in office than the newcomers.
Supervisor Jim Dougherty was the only board member to vote against putting this issue on the ballot. He is right to criticize his colleagues for putting on the ballot something that not a single one believes in.
Running proposals up the flagpole — on the ballot or even at public hearings — just to test the reaction isn’t the way to get things done. Nothing should be formally proposed that a board majority doesn’t believe in. Otherwise, we’re in for more of the same: a lot of wheel-spinning and wasted time.
