Log in Subscribe

Legislators table discussion on staggered terms

Matt Shortall - News Editor
Posted 1/16/18

MONTICELLO — A discussion of staggered terms for legislators broke down last week when no clear agreement could be reached.

While all legislators agreed that there should be staggered terms, …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Legislators table discussion on staggered terms

Posted

MONTICELLO — A discussion of staggered terms for legislators broke down last week when no clear agreement could be reached.

While all legislators agreed that there should be staggered terms, there's less consensus on how they should break down. Historically, all nine legislators have been up for reelection at the same time every four years. The idea of staggered terms was first considered as a way to protect institutional knowledge in the legislature and support the continuity of government.

The debate seems to center around two concerns: splitting up the election years to minimize the possibility of a majority of the board being voted out at once, and organizing them in a way so that legislators aren't constantly thinking of reelection.

There are two options that County Attorney Cheryl McCausland proposed based on the concerns she's heard from legislators.

In one scenario, the nine seats would be organized in a five-four split, with five seats on the ballot in one year and four seats on the ballot two years later. Legislators would decide whether the five seats running in the first year would be for two-or four-year terms.

In the other scenario, there would be three seats on the ballot each year - all for four year terms - and no elections in the fourth year.

“The concern is that if you go five-four, in theory, you could have a year where you have five completely new individuals sitting on the legislature,” McCausland explained.

“The whole idea of this [staggered terms] was so that a majority of the board could not be changed all at once,” District 3 Legislator Mark McCarthy said. “With five-four, that's a possibility,”

“You're going to have stress during every election period,” District 7 Legislator Joe Perrello said. “People are going to be afraid to make moves or decisions based on their reelection. We should go five-four, that way you can get progress done throughout the four-year period.

“I've thought about this for a long time and I think it's really the best way to go,” said District 1 Legislator Scott Samuelson, referring to a three-three-three scenario.

District 9 Legislator Alan Sorensen raised concerns about how a three-three-three scenario would fall among party lines. There would have to be some measure taken to ensure the three incumbent candidates on any given election year aren't all Republicans or all Democrats.

In the end, the discussion was tabled until McCausland could enter a resolution to schedule a public hearing. The public hearing to amend the charter to address staggered terms would be set for sometime in February.

Food Hub plans to open this year

Plans for a county food hub are moving forward, and it may soon have an executive director.

The food hub was developed as a way to connect local farmers with businesses, hotels and restaurants throughout Sullivan County. The hope is that the food hub will attract suppliers and distributors from beyond the county as well.

“I think of the core service area as Sullivan County and adjacent counties, including Wayne and Pike on the Pennsylvania side,” explained Jennifer Flad, executive director for the IDA. “There's a big market in New York City and in the city's suburbs, but the ultimate goal here is to increase the local agriculture economy.”

The broader long term goal of the Food Hub includes improving the public health.

The Sullivan County Food Hub will connect with other food hubs around New York, “building regional food economy connecting various aggregation and distribution facilities.”

Flad said that the Food Hub hopes to fill the vacant executive director position within the next few weeks. Renovations continue on the Food Hub building in the Village of Liberty.

Plans were underway to turn the site into a red meat processing plant two years ago, but that project was scrapped and a food hub was proposed instead. The IDA owns the building and plans to lease it to the non-profit, who will then sublease the building to the distributor.

“We have plans all drawn up for the build out of the interior,” Flad said. “It will be a warehouse with ample freezer and cooler space, a loading dock and various pieces of equipment inside.”

Flad said that construction will be underway and nearing completion within the next three months. “The IDA has received a grant to purchase equipment, including those freezers and coolers, and also some delivery vehicles,” Flad said. “Things are going to move very quickly in the next three to six months. I'm hopeful we can open the doors during the 2018 growing season and get started with a pilot project.”

At least one resident was skeptical that a food hub is going to be better for local agriculture than the formerly proposed red meat facility.

“They forced more onto the back of the red meat producer than they did for the food hub, so it's a sweeter deal to run it,” Grahamsville resident Ken Walter said. “The rate they want to charge per square foot for rent is much less than they had put out on the RFP for the red meat plant. That meat plant should still be what it is. There's still a demand.”

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here