Shelby councilwoman says appointing highway supt., town clerk would mean more accountability

Editor:

On Tuesday, November 3 town of Shelby voters will decide whether the highway superintendent and town clerk positions should be hired by the Town Board (appointed, as the ballot says) rather than elected. I urge you to vote yes on both.

First, what this is not about. No one is taking away your right to vote. You are the ones deciding this question. The board is asking whether you agree, as we do, that hiring these positions means better management and more accountability.

I have served on the board for three years. Our highways are one of the largest things your tax dollars pay for: plowing, paving, drainage, equipment, and a crew of employees. Yet the person who runs that department answers to no one between elections. The Town Board works with the highway superintendent to set the budget, but it has almost no say in how the department is run. When an elected superintendent chooses not to cooperate with the board, as has been our experience, there is little the board can do.

Supporters say an elected superintendent is accountable to the public. In theory, yes. In practice, residents rarely attend the meetings where highway spending is discussed. When money is wasted or the department is poorly managed, the board takes the blame, even though it has no authority over the department. Responsibility without authority is no way to run a town.

Consider the rules everyone else works under. Town employees follow the town’s personnel policy. Highway crew members work under a union contract. The elected superintendent follows neither. The elected position has no limit on vacation, sick, or personal time, no set hours, and no one who reviews their schedule. Taxpayers pay a full salary and have no way to know how those hours are managed.

A hired superintendent would report to the board, work the hours it sets, and follow the same time-off rules as other town employees. If the department isn’t performing, the board could act, and voters would know whom to hold responsible: the board they elect.

Hiring also means choosing on qualifications. The board could post the job, review resumes, interview candidates, and select the best person. An election offers none of that. Candidates can claim qualifications during a campaign that no one verifies, and voters are limited to whoever chooses to run.

The same reasoning applies to the town clerk. The clerk collects millions of dollars in taxes, in addition to keeping official records and issuing licenses and permits. Handling that much public money takes training, accuracy, and reliability, and the board should be able to hire for those qualifications and hold the clerk to the same standards as other town staff.

Opponents will say elections give voters direct control, and that a hire could simply be a favorite of the board. Those are fair concerns. But voters would still control who sits on the board, and the board would answer for every hire it makes. Today, no one is answerable for these offices in any meaningful way. This isn’t a new idea. Towns across New York (Bath, Avoca and Howard to name a few) have moved to this model.

Please vote yes on both propositions on Tuesday, November 3.

Sincerely,

Linda Limina

Shelby town councilwoman