Northampton County Executive Lamont McClure has vetoed three County Council ordinances that would allow county voters to decide whether county elected offices should be term-limited.
On June 15, County Council voted 6-3 to ask voters whether the County Exec should be limited to two terms and Council member limited to three. They also voted 6-2, with one abstention, to ask voters whether the Controller should be limited to two terms.
In his veto message, McClure expresses no opinion on the relative merits of term limits. Her instead notes that Council, which repeated expressed the need to be "consistent," was inconsistent. Language pertaining to the County Executive differed from language pertaining to Controller and Council. He refers to it as an "inadvertent ambiguity" that casts "series [sic] doubt" on Council's real intentions. He's returning the term limits ordinances so County Council can make them consistent.
Since County Council is about to introduce a term limits ordinance limiting the DA to two terms, it's probably a wise idea to be as clear as possible. These are, after all, Home Rule Charter amendments.
I'd add that, instead of just limiting their discussion to themselves, County Council would benefit from the input that can be provided by former DAs, Controllers and Executives as well as an examination of what other counties do.
I have no problem with allowing the voters to weigh in on this issue. Given the low regard in which all elected officials are held, it would almost certainly pass overwhelmingly. But at the same time, there's been no public clamor for term limits on the county level. Thius strikes more more as a talking point for some Council members in future races.
18 comments:
Typical political ego move by McClure. You approve of his disingenuous move and attack county council. You are a good boy.
To me, it makes no difference whether McClure vetoes or not. There is a veto-proof majority, and his veto appears only to be intended to strengthen this change to our Charter. I would suggest that, before changing the Home Rule Charter on the whim of a Council member, a certain amount of effort should be put into soliciting feedback from different people who have served as Controller, Exec and DA. I think we'd also benefit from an examination of what is done elsewhere. And to be honest, I've heard no public outcry for term limits on a county level. A change to the charter should probably be done a bit more thoughtfully. At the end of the day, it matters very little to me. My personal philosophy is one of pragmatism. I do not think term limits on a county level will either improve or worsen county government. Hence it makes no difference.
I would add that, before taking the serious step of amending the HRC for the 7,000th time, some effort should be put into getting the language right, not some last-minute amendments right before passage.
King Allentown would veto this as well! Wagmer turned on putin I hear so king may be gaining some territory soon.🤣
All of these recommendations should go before a "Study Commission" elected by the voters and completely researched by the Commission. These are major changes to the Home Rule Charter and legal precedent has been set about major changes. You make a D.A. full time and then want to limit him to two terms. The same with the Controller. That means the D.A. would have to give up his private law practice, and the Controller couldn't have a side job (like doing taxes etc.). McClure was right to veto the absurd recommendations of a do nothing COUNCIL/ COMMISIONERS. The other option is they can hold public hearings on the recommendations and save the taxpayers money by meeting in different municipalities of the county. They were elected to serve the Charter, not dismantle it.
Who in the public clamored for your ethics bill he pushed other than you.
Well stated by the first comment on here. You are a good little soldier/sheep. Hope they give treats for your good behavior.
There has been a public clamor for local ethics over many years. I have been somewhat of a broken record over the years on numerous ethical reforms, especially as they relate to campaign finance. There has been a public clamor for a gift ban. It was started by Wolf when he ran for Governor. Locally, this was pushed by Bob Donchez. I did not think we needed one until I became aware that our HRC is completely inconsistent with our Admin Code. Regardless whether there is a public clamor, the Admin Code has to be changed to be consistent with the HRC. Council's continued insistence on dragging its feet in correcting this inconsistency is yet another demonstration what they really think about being consistent.
"Well stated by the first comment on here. You are a good little soldier/sheep. Hope they give treats for your good behavior."
McClure's veto can be viewed two ways. It can be viewed as a spite move, in which case it is bad government. It can also be viewed as an attempt to strengthen the proposed changes to the HRC, in which case it is good government. I am assuming the latter.
The HRC is our Constitution. It should not be changed lightly. When it is changed, the language making that change should be as clear as possible. In this case, the changes made were at the last minute and somewhat hurried. That's bad government.
One of the elected offices - DA - was left out of the loop with a desire to pick it up in July. Council could override the veto if it concludes McClure acted vindictively. There is no way he can stop them. He knows that. Or Council could conclude he was trying to strengthen their proposed change and just reintroduce the HRC amendments along with the DA ordinance. My guess is they will assume the former and just override. There's more than the usual healthy tension between these two branches. There's animosity, and that is unhealthy and is leading to bad government.
Both McClure and Council are at fault.
What happens matters little to me. I have no reason to believe that the quality of government will be strengthened or weakened by local term limits. Hence, as a matter of pragmatism, it makes no difference to me. This reminds me of a man chasing a dog around a tree. Has the man gone round the dog or has the dog always been ahead? In the end, it really makes no difference.
I tend to be opposed to term limits on a local level, but have no opposition to leaving that question to voters. It is not a question of finance or a complicated matter. You either support or you don't.
Instead of just soliciting opinions from each other, I'd suggest that Council speak with some of the previous holders of the affected offices to get their take. They do not need to speak to Council members. But they might wish to get opinions from prior Execs, DAs and Controllers. Changing a HRC should not be on the whim of a Council member or done for political purposes. If it is being done to strengthen government, Council should seek opinions and do a little more homework.
In the end, I have no opinion bc I do not think local term limits will either strengthen or weaken local government so I don't care what they do. If it were state or federal term limits, I'd care.
His veto is certainly picayune, but that's needed when changing a HRC.
So, a debate and vote by six elected officials that took the executives whining into account is less informed, than an angry and meaningless veto by one person based on a concern already addressed. Based on your comments it is safe to say you definitely have an opinion and it is typically pro McClure and anti-legislative government and letting the people decide. You are an autocrat lover or more accurately a McClure gang lover. Executive for life!
I've explained myself pretty clearly. Your summary, as usual, is inaccurate. It's pretty clear that you are motivated by hatred as opposed to a desire for good government.
He is a politician. --they will never do term limits --It would limit their need for power--Our system breeds these people.
pro tip: one person taking the power out of the peoples hands by not letting them vote on it is not good government.
Anonymous said...
He is a politician. --they will never do term limits --It would limit their need for power--Our system breeds these people.
100% agree. and this is where this blog comes into play. the admin feeds the blogger crumbs of info so it comes across as credible while said blogger runs cover for admin & any wrongdoing. sprinkle in with the occasional critique over something inconsequential and voila the perfect mouthpiece for the system. Unfortunately, too many people fall for it every time, still follow this blog and still vote for these people.
"pro tip: one person taking the power out of the peoples hands by not letting them vote on it is not good government."
Pro tip: When arguing, you should at least try to be honest. McClure's veto does not take power out of the people's hands. First, Council can easily override him. Second, Council can resubmit its ordinance after including the change in language recommended by McClure. In both instances, power remains very much in the hands of the people.
Try being honest when you argue.
His proposal is intended to actually strengthen the HRC against a possible challenge. A HRC change requires a bit more effort than making last-minute changes like Council did.
Well , some entities require after two terms as a board member , a person must sit out one before eligibility to return. This makes good sense to me.
Well, I think you just have to look at it in its simplest form. Who should make the decision, 1 politician, 10 council or the voters. I know what I would choose and most pp would agree with me. You clearly are okay with mcclure or council playing the runaround game cuz yada yada broken record good government.
9:56, You seem to forget that Council voted to place this on the ballot and has a veto-proof majority. Yes, McClure is a politician but so are the 9 (not 10) members of Council. What political interest do they have in a ballot question that will almost certainly pass? I agree that this question should be put to voters, but with language that is crystal clear. It's time to be a lot more careful about changes to the charter. Not everything is a plastic straw resolution.
Post a Comment