In the aftermath of the county budget crisis of 2004, Erie County residents began to search for answers. How could this happen, who screwed up? When anything fails, from a business to a sports team to a government, it is human nature to look for a scapegoat. Joel Giambra became the Scott Norwood of county government, shouldering the blame for a government that fell short in its most important responsibility—the public’s money. A review commission was established in April of 2005 to look into ways to change the county charter (county constitution). Over a year later, the changes proposed by this commission all seem to lead back to the same question: Is it the system of government that failed, or have the elected officials functioning within the system failed?

The Charter Revision Commission submitted 44 potential changes to the County Legislature. Of those, 33 were accepted in a July 13 vote. Although it appears that the majority were accepted, almost every proposal that involved a substantial change was flat out rejected. Most of the 33 changes that were accepted were clerical and administrative changes that can be described as nothing more than simple housekeeping. The commission’s work represented arguably the first serious effort to change the charter since its inception, as well as the last time it will be reviewed for the next decade.

Since the formation of the commission, there have been four open and advertised public meetings, though attendance was so sparse it was laughable. Some legislators may have felt that the public was not informed on the issues and thus took them out of the public’s hands. However, the lack of attendance of said meetings, which took place in June and July, can easily be attributed to the hectic nature of summer schedules and not a lack of interest. Low turnout at public meetings rarely translates to low turnout at the voter booths.

Legislator Kathy Konst, representing District 5, expressed her concern that the public meetings did little to inform those in attendance of the issues. She felt that even the Legislature was at times left uninformed due to the nature of the meetings.

“The public hearings assumed that everyone had already done research,” said Konst. “Then they were given a chance to talk about the issues, there was no presentation. What needed to happen was to have presentations, and the fact that the Legislature did not make an effort to get a presentation from the commision is a shame.”

The most notable proposal that was rejected was a hybrid system of government. In the hybrid system, a county manager would have been introduced who would handle the day-to-day activities of government. The county executive would have stayed in place as a long-term visionary and key spokesman to the public. The county manager would not be an elected position, but rather would be appointed by a national search committee chosen by the county executive, the chair of the Legislature and the majority and minority leaders. Some lawmakers expressed a desire to have a community member on the committee as well, although it wasn’t written into the proposal.

If the hybrid system were passed by a majority vote of the Legislature, it would’ve then gone to a public vote by the people of Erie County. Any changes being made to the charter that result in a change in powers of elected officials have to go to a citizen vote before they can be passed. When the proposal was shot down by the Legislature, the vote was taken out of the hands of Erie County citizens.

Legislator Cynthia Locklear, representing District 9, voted in favor of the hybrid system. She feels that Erie County is entitled to a government in which two people can work together, each focusing on his individual skills. According to Locklear, taking the vote out of the hands of the people was a selfish act by the Legislature.

“I knew that the chances of this getting passed were very low,” said Locklear. “I didn’t think there would be more than six or seven legislative votes in support. The Legislature should not act as a filter to prevent this question from going to the people. It is shameful that legislators think they have superior knowledge over the public. The community needs to know they had a right to vote on this and they should be calling their legislators.”

Many lawmakers said they couldn’t support the hybrid system, because they felt that it was elected officials who failed, not the system of government they were using. Like most systems of government, the hybrid has been effective in certain parts of the country and has failed in others. Although the hybrid was proposed as a budget-neutral system, there was still concern that in these spare times, the salaries of the county manager and his staff would end up costing more than the current system.

George Arthur, chair of the Charter Revision Commission, was not in favor of the hybrid system. He believes that rather than create a new county manager position the deputy county executive should have expanded duties. He admitted that the Legislature did not take his proposal seriously, and it, too, was voted down last week. According to Arthur, the county manger would have signed a four- or five-year contract, which would not make him accountable to the taxpayers.

“The meltdown that took place in the county was not the charter,” said Arthur. “No one can pinpoint where the charter failed. It was caused by bad political decisions. If you have a county executive who has good professional people around him/her, then you don’t need a county manager. In any system of government bad decisions are bad decisions. It’s not the system of government, it’s who is there to make the decisions.”

Those supporting the hybrid system argued that if our county government can fail based on the bad decisions of one elected official, that is reason enough for change. In theory, a hybrid system would balance the power between two highly qualified individuals, maximizing the talents of each by allowing him to focus on his areas of skill.

There are many different opinions about the hybrid system, and it remains the focus of much debate. Given its high profile in the media, it is perhaps most surprising that the Legislature defeated the hybrid government proposal. Other notable proposals rejected by the Legislature include:

—The establishment of Blueprint for Change, an attempt to put a friendlier face on the county’s health and human services. Individuals in need of service would only have to fill out one form and the system would automatically let them know what services they’re qualified for. In the end, it was an attempt at consolidation.

—The establishment of minimum requirements for all department heads, an effort to place better-qualified individuals into office.

—A process for removing a county executive that would be similar to impeachment.

—The redefining of the deputy executive’s job, making him more of a county manager.

—Term limits, pay hikes/pay cuts, a four-year term for legislators and the reshaping of the legislative staff. All items that would potentially affect the job security of the legislators were squashed. In fact, establishing term limits for legislatures was never even brought to the floor for a vote.

—Establishing a borrowing cap for the county at a given time.

Of the 33 changes accepted by the Legislature, the most notable and productive change involves the expansion of the duties of the county comptroller. Under the previous charter, the county executive prepared revenue estimates and only those within his office had the opportunity to review them. Additionally, the executive was the only person who could declare a budget crisis. That system failed horribly in the recent budget crisis.

In the months leading up to that crisis, many legislators anticipated errors in the revenue estimates, but there was nothing they could do about it. County Executive Joel Giambra made a revenue estimate that was off by over $100 million. As it became increasingly clear that the county was in a state of financial turmoil, Giambra became more and more reluctant to declare a crisis in a last ditch effort to save face. His lack of initiative ended up making matters much worse by the time he finally declared a budget crisis.

Legislature Chairwoman Lynn Marinelli said that several legislators anticipated a deficit long before the public was made aware of it. She said it was extremely frustrating when Giambra refused to declare a deficit or provide a plan for dealing with it.

“Several of us were suspicious of a deficit back in the spring of ’04 but could not get the executive to declare it and give us a plan,” said Marinelli. “This was before the public was made aware of it. If we could have gotten the executive to declare one we could have blunted the effects of the deficit.”

Under the new charter, the comptroller will be given the authority to review the revenue estimates and check for accuracy. The comptroller will also have the authority to declare a budget crisis if the county should find itself in financial trouble again. The comptroller’s office will act as an independent watchdog over the county executive, overseeing various monies and accounts.

County Comptroller Mark Polancarz feels that having more duties in his office will ultimately save taxpayers money. In the months leading up to the recent legislative vote, he said, the hybrid system of government gobbled up the headlines but was not the most important change being proposed to the charter.

“My office will be given additional powers,” said Polancarz. “When the county executive issues a new budget my office has the power to review the revenue estimates. All revenue recovery efforts will now be kept in my office. Little things like this don’t get the big headlines but save taxpayers money in the long run. The comptroller will now be the true chief fiscal officer.”

The work of the commission has been recognized by most involved as thorough and extensive. General consensus is that it went above and beyond the call of duty and showed deep concern for the county in its recommendations to the Legislature. However, the fact that the charter was hardly changed and won’t be looked at again for ten years is puzzling and raises serious questions about what the next decade has in store for the county.

The issues that were denied by the Legislature are by no means dead. They will continue to be debated and should play a big role in the next set of elections.

In a city that has publicly cried out for change, though, this was a golden opportunity missed to make meaningful changes. The best political minds that our county has to offer put countless hours into fixing the county’s problems, and all they managed, in the end, was to expand the comptroller’s duties.

“There is a hunger in this community to have an active involvement in our form of government and make it more accountable,” said Locklear. “The failure of the Legislature to engage in any meaningful debates about these keystone elements is an insult to voters and a disgrace on the Legislature.”