It's unclear whether Onondaga County voters will get the chance this year to decide if the county executive or comptroller should have term limits.
Ryan McMahon said after a public hearing Wednesday that he intended to veto the legislation for a second time, even after most speakers expressed support for limiting the offices to three, four-year terms. There was also support on the legislature, but McMahon said the measure - sponsored by the Democratic majority - reeked of partisanship.
“We can have the debate," he said. "I'll support a term limit bill, but there's got to be more than one Republican with Democrats. You have to come together.”
McMahon said there’s no consensus on the matter, and questioned the motivation of the legislative majority.
“Priorities matter right now in county government," he said. "We have a politically divided county government. The priorities of the legislature seem to be very focused on power and not on people.”
Some of the speakers at the public hearing agreed, including Diane Kucharski. She urged McMahon to veto the legislation.
“Part of the original problem for the county executive was the fact that the legislative branch did not consult with the executive branch on the way the laws would have imposed a term limit," she said. "That was not right.”
But most of the other speakers in the standing-room only conference room extolled what they see as the benefits of term limits. Amanda Benhart said someone in office for decades leads to complacency among the electorate.
“Term limits help us avoid stagnation. They help us improve nonpartisan work, and they help prepare our system and our people for what comes next," she said. "It helps our next generation be able to get involved earlier in thinking about what's going on in our communities.”
Former Democratic county legislator Linda Ervin wanted McMahon to allow voters to decide via a referendum on the November ballot.
“Clearly The people here, as well as those out in the public, want term limits," she said. "I'm no longer in office. I served for 14 years. But people come to me still with their complaints and their frustrations. And they are frustrated about this because they want the right to vote for this.”
Since the hearing and McMahon's discussion with reporters, a flurry of emails added new uncertainty to the future of the legislation. County legislature chairwoman Nicole Watts said she received two letters with McMahon's signature: The first one adopted the measure and second vetoed it. Since the first one received was the approval, Watts said that was enough for the legislature to send it to the board of elections to be placed on the November ballot.
The county law department, which forwarded both letters, said the first one was a mistake, even though it had McMahon's signature in ink. For now, the foundation is in place to give voters a chance to decide whether the county executive and comptroller's offices should be term-limited. But the courts are likely to sort out the mess and decide whether the measure is on or off the ballot.
Here's the timeline of what happened, according to the county legislature's office:
- At 11:38 a.m., the Legislature received an electronic communication adopting the local law.
- At 11:50 a.m., the Deputy Clerk confirmed receipt of that adoption.
- At 11:57 a.m., a second electronic communication arrived, attempting to veto the same local law.
- Approximately 12:15 p.m., a representative from County Law Department physically delivered two sealed envelopes containing both the adoption and the attempted veto with wet-ink signatures.
Following review of the County Charter and consultation with outside counsel, the Legislature claimed that the first received electronic document is the valid and actionable adoption of the local law. Because the adopted local law was received, opened, and recorded both electronically and physically, the legislature said the law is deemed as adopted under the Onondaga County Charter. They said the subsequent electronic and physical veto messages will not be recognized.
- At 3:38 p.m., Bob Durr of the County Law Office, informed the Chairwoman that the electronic transmissions and the delivered transmittal adopting the local law were sent in error.
However, the charter states the procedural act of rescinding an adopted law is to present a new local law.
