This is the last of a series on the proposal to create a county manager by the Cayuga County Legislature.
Believe it or not, after some 19 months of talk, debate and deliberation, the greatest flaw with the proposal to create a county manager that may be discussed at the county Legislature meeting Tuesday night is how easy it will be to revert back to the current system of operation.
That's right, even with all the delays, endless study and false starts, now that there is something on the table, what is being proposed is too easy to change if it upsets the powers that be.
From a simple point a view, that may make sense. If the Legislature has come up with a proposal that doesn't work, it is easier to change back than if a change was done with a public referendum, which would be harder to reverse, right?
Wrong. Because what is being proposed can be reversed by a local law (the same thing that is creating it). It leaves the distinct possibility that a group of legislators, upset with the person they hire or what they have done, can just create another local law to toss the whole reform.
The most common sense and troubling line in the current proposal is Section 9(E): "The County Manager shall not be required to perform specific tasks requested of him/her by any individual legislator or group of legislators." Common sense because it is right. Troubling because it is unlikely that a county manager, who has got to count on at least eight legislators to keep their job, will be hard pressed not to do the "little things" they ask if pressured.
More importantly, without a higher threshold for reversing what is done, it will be not only harder to recruit a good county manager, but also make the job so impossible that retaining one will be difficult.
One of the reasons for reforming the current system is not change for the sake of change, but that there needs to be structural and operational changes.
Change takes not only vision and will, but also sometimes the security that it can be tried.
What happens if, for example, a super majority of legislators get tired of what they created by local law or a new crop of legislators who don't like the system come to power or the public is outraged over something the county manager wants to do and wants his or her head on a political pole?
Unlike City Hall, where to change the form of government requires a public referendum, only 10 weighted votes would be needed to throw the proposed experiment in professional governance out.
Changing any form of government needs to be harder than just a local law - it needs not only several hurdles to be put in place to create, but the same type of hurdles, like a divorce, to prevent a reversal on a whim or based on political pressure.
Cosentino is a former mayor of the city of Auburn and can be e-mailed at cozguytho@aol.com
That's right, even with all the delays, endless study and false starts, now that there is something on the table, what is being proposed is too easy to change if it upsets the powers that be.
From a simple point a view, that may make sense. If the Legislature has come up with a proposal that doesn't work, it is easier to change back than if a change was done with a public referendum, which would be harder to reverse, right?
Wrong. Because what is being proposed can be reversed by a local law (the same thing that is creating it). It leaves the distinct possibility that a group of legislators, upset with the person they hire or what they have done, can just create another local law to toss the whole reform.
The most common sense and troubling line in the current proposal is Section 9(E): "The County Manager shall not be required to perform specific tasks requested of him/her by any individual legislator or group of legislators." Common sense because it is right. Troubling because it is unlikely that a county manager, who has got to count on at least eight legislators to keep their job, will be hard pressed not to do the "little things" they ask if pressured.
More importantly, without a higher threshold for reversing what is done, it will be not only harder to recruit a good county manager, but also make the job so impossible that retaining one will be difficult.
One of the reasons for reforming the current system is not change for the sake of change, but that there needs to be structural and operational changes.
Change takes not only vision and will, but also sometimes the security that it can be tried.
What happens if, for example, a super majority of legislators get tired of what they created by local law or a new crop of legislators who don't like the system come to power or the public is outraged over something the county manager wants to do and wants his or her head on a political pole?
Unlike City Hall, where to change the form of government requires a public referendum, only 10 weighted votes would be needed to throw the proposed experiment in professional governance out.
Changing any form of government needs to be harder than just a local law - it needs not only several hurdles to be put in place to create, but the same type of hurdles, like a divorce, to prevent a reversal on a whim or based on political pressure.
Cosentino is a former mayor of the city of Auburn and can be e-mailed at cozguytho@aol.com
The Citizens' Say
There are No comments posted.