Turn your Ballot Over; Keep Enfield Accountable
Opinion and Commentary by Councilperson Robert Lynch; October 26, 2024
This General Election, just as a mere three years ago, we Enfield voters are being asked the same three questions: Shall we double the length of future terms of office for our Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, and Highway Superintendent?
I, your Town Councilperson, speaking strictly as your neighbor, urge you to vote “No” on these three propositions, Proposals Two, Three, and Four (Enfield Propositions Nos. 1, 2, and 3), listed on the back of your ballot. I will vote “No” to each of these proposals. I hope you will join me in rejecting them as well..
Many of you may be startled and stand unaware that we’re doing this all over again. But we are. So when you cast your vote, either in person or by absentee, turn your ballot over. Realize that our three Enfield propositions are before us once again. Consider the arguments pro and con. And then vote your conscience. That’s all I can ask.
On July 31, just in time to meet this year’s ballot filing deadline, the Enfield Town Board endorsed and advanced to a mandatory public referendum in this General Election the three so-called “Terms-of-Office Laws.” If supported by a majority of Enfield voters on November 5th, the proposals would lengthen future terms of office for Enfield Town Supervisor, Town Clerk, and Highway Superintendent from two years to four years.
The current terms of incumbents holding these three offices, the terms that each expire in December 2025, would not be impacted. Adoption would affect only terms that commence in January 2026 and beyond.
Our Town Board split four-to-one when it voted on these ballot measures last July. In each instance, I cast the lone dissent. As I wrote after the meeting:
“I oppose holding this second, ever-so-close-to-the last-time referendum. I must oppose it. I believe I have no choice. For me to decide otherwise would be to tell you a lie and to state an untruth openly and on the public record.”
Contrary to the Ballot Resolutions’ language, I do not believe “that the Town will be best served” by these changed terms of office. I believe it would be worst served. These revisions, I told the Board “would make our Town worse off, not better.”
Enfield’s “Political Class” those whom we elect to lead us, has an inescapable vested interest in the outcome of these referenda, of course. Less frequent elections place less bother, worry, and expense upon those who may regard biannual campaigning as drudgery, rather than as an honor and a responsibility.
Several of the Enfield leaders who would benefit voiced their predictable support during our Town Board deliberations in mid-June. It was a meeting when the Board’s majority—again, over this Councilperson’s objection—decided to advance the renewed initiative for extended terms first to a Public Hearing, and then to this November’s General Election.
Town Supervisor Stephanie Redmond and Highway Superintendent Barry “Buddy” Rollins each spoke in favor of the longer terms that night. Redmond related how she felt about entering Enfield government when first elected to office as a Town Councilperson in 2020. Councilpersons, by state law, serve four-year terms.
“Coming in as a newcomer with zero political experience before I showed up here and being lucky enough to have a four-year term, honestly, the first two years were scary,” Redmond related. “There was a huge learning curve. I knew nothing about any of the processes we were doing here, how things were done…. But I agree that two years is a very short amount of time if you’re kind of coming from scratch….”
Mind you, I also took my first oath as Enfield Councilperson the same day as Stephanie Redmond did. I assure you I’ve learned much these past five years. But unlike our current Supervisor, I never felt “scared,” anxious or unconfident on Day One. Nor have I felt so at any time thereafter. Maybe it’s the nature of the people involved that makes the difference, not the nature of the job.
What bothers me most, however, is that some in our Enfield Town Government cannot take “No” for an answer. And above all else, that reluctance to accept the electorate’s will is why I oppose this resubmitted trio of Terms-of-Office laws.
The Enfield Town Board first sought longer terms for Supervisor, Town Clerk, and Highway Superintendent in 2021. The 2021 referenda came just one year after Enfield voters had resoundingly rejected ballot measures that would have migrated the Highway Superintendent’s and Town Clerk’s jobs from elected to appointive positions.
But the 2021 ballot measures also lost handily. Extending the Supervisor’s term fared the worst, losing by 32 percentage points (238 in favor, 458 opposed; 34.2% to 65.8%). For Town Clerk, the margin of defeat was 16 percent (292 to 405); and for Highway Superintendent 14 per cent (301 to 395). The voters spoke then, and they spoke loudly. Why question their decision now just three years later?
“You know what they say about insanity.” I told the Town Board June 12th. “It is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting … a different outcome.”
“They told us what they wanted” I continued that night. “They said we want to keep it at two years. But here we are, the political class, because we think that it’s inconvenient to go out and campaign, or to petition every two years, or to put ourselves up for possible defeat every two years, that we feel that we should somehow (say): ‘ Oh, you didn’t get it right the last time, electorate. We think we should ask you again, and again.’”
I do not believe in insulting the electorate’s intelligence or in questioning their motives for deciding matters as they did. When voters speak, I try to listen. And I employ the electorate’s guidance to shape the positions I take when I act in their behalf on the Enfield Town Board. But judging from the decisions made this summer, it’s clear that others who represent us do not embrace that same attitude or stand willing to close the book on issues buried in the past.
By pressing for longer terms of office, elected officials insulate themselves from the voters. They encourage themselves to govern in a bubble. And they do so by choice.
When terms become longer, voters cannot hold officials to account for their actions as often. And longer terms deny those we elect the reiterative performance review that leads them to better represent us. Supervisor Redmond and Highway Superintendent Rollins have each told us they do not like to campaign. And Redmond would rather that people like me not campaign either. It’s unfortunate they share that outlook on public service.
Democracy works best when elections are most frequent. As an example, take Enfield’s recent controversy over its Highway Department’s tree pruning practices.
The Enfield Highway Superintendent is now completing his first year of a two-year term. By law, he holds virtually unbridled operational authority over road maintenance matters. Therefore, only the ballot box provides an effective check on his power. Why not allow those who wish to alter (or for that matter, to affirm) the Superintendent’s policy decisions the opportunity to exercise their most frequent oversight? I believe they should. It’s another reason I oppose this year’s Enfield ballot measures.
Lastly, remember that in the Town of Enfield, majority control of our Town Board can only change in years when the Town Supervisor faces election. Therefore, if you seek to alter the course of Enfield’s governance, it can happen only when the voters elect the Supervisor.
We in Enfield have a Town Board of five. Three votes comprise a majority. Councilpersons serve for staggered, four-year terms, with two of them each facing re-election every two years. The shorter a Supervisor’s term, the faster majoritarian change can take place. Whether it’s fracking, wind farms, or now, land use controls, the public thumb rests heaviest on the balance scales of government in years when three of our five elected Board members seek your approval at the polling station.
More frequent local elections keep public servants grounded, closer to those whom they represent. State Senators and Assemblymembers serve two-year terms. So do Congressional representatives. Why should those who plow our roads and draft our town budgets not be equally accountable? I believe they should be.
That’s why I will vote “No” on Proposals Two, Three, and Four this Election Day. I urge you to vote “No” along with me.
Robert Lynch
Councilperson, Town of Enfield
###