The Empire Page

Background: Given his long record of service to New York State and expertise in local government it was no surprise that Stan Lundine was named chairman of the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness (LGEC) early in 2007.  Our interview with the former Lt. Gov. is the first of two with officials involved in the Commission.

 

Q:  When Gov. Spitzer asked you to head the Commission on Local Government Efficiency in early 2007, other than the fact that it was the governor calling, why did you accept?  Specifically what was it that made this particular assignment attractive?

A: I accepted Governor Spitzer's request to head up a Commission on Local Government Efficiency & Competitiveness because of my long standing commitment to regionalization and reform of local government structure in our State.  In fact, I co-chaired two conferences at Chautauqua Institution in 1997 and 1998 on this subject and, I believe that Governor Spitzer was aware of my long standing interest in reforming both municipal and local school governance.  The assignment was attractive because the Governor had mentioned this as an important initiative in his State of the State and one of his top aides, Lloyd Constantine, was named as liaison to this effort.

The amusing aspect of this decision to Chair the Commission was that I told Governor Spitzer I would be happy to devote a year to developing the very best recommendations for restructuring and reform, but that I did not want to be involved in implementation.  I recall telling him that I did not want to go around the State doing editorial boards or testify before the Legislature on behalf of the agenda and that the Administration should decide which of the Commission recommendations it wanted to strongly advocate.  Governor Spitzer told me "I am the implementer" and I was confident that we had an agreement.

Then, of course, came the succession of David Patterson to the Governor's responsibilities and I have not specifically discussed the matter of implementation with him because I can sympathize with his extraordinary challenges.  Nevertheless, I remain of the opinion that the local officials should be the primary implementers at the action level of government and that the Governor and some legislative leaders need to make sure that New York State is fully supportive of these efforts and that enabling legislation is an important part of the agenda.

Finally, it seems to me that the financial crisis facing the State inevitably involving local governments also creates an opportunity for reform.  Sometimes it is possible to get difficult things done in a crisis atmosphere which would never be possible in normal times.  It is my hope that local government can be challenged to be more efficient and property taxes stabilized even while we are dealing with the fiscal crisis which may last for several years.

 

Q: When the Commission was formed and you began to conduct hearings around the state what was the mood you found among local elected officials.  Was it "We've been talking about this for years; it'll never happen" or "We've been talking about this for years; now's the time to get it done"?

A: When the Commission on Local Government Efficiency & Competitiveness was convened, there was definite skepticism by the interest groups representing local governments.  However, when the Governor sent a letter to local officials asking for their ideas about consolidation and cooperation among municipalities, we got over 200 responses many of which are still being pursued.

We started the hearings in Glens Falls and had David Rusk, a noted regionalization expert nationwide, as the first witness.  That may have frightened some of the local government people because he is definitely an advocate for metropolitan government.  However, given New York's Constitution and other home rule restrictions, he clearly defined us as a "small box state".  Compared to southern and other jurisdictions where expansion of municipal boundaries is much easier, we have a challenge even where the illogical and outdated jurisdictional lines are abundantly clear.

There does seem to be an attitude that "we have been talking about regionalization for years" among local leaders.  On the other hand, there is a sense that we are at a crisis point and this creates an opportunity for reform.  The local initiatives also tend to undercut the criticism that we have had Commissions before and nothing much was accomplished.

At the same time, we will have to see how many of our recommendations are actually implemented.  We got a good start with the Local Government Efficiency Grant Program which was included in this years' budget and given additional funding.  The more controversial reforms need to be addressed by the Governor and the Legislature in the session upcoming.  I am quite confident that Governor Patterson will create the Center for Local Government Efficiency which our Commission recommended and that they can be a one stop source of information and coordination for local initiatives.  Ultimately, however, the question of whether New York substantially reduces the number of school districts and consolidates municipal government will rest with the local officials who are are the action level of government.

 

Q: You say that the push for implementation of reform must come from the local level.  It certainly makes sense that if you want change to be successful, it's better if the people at the grass roots level are in favor of it.  What's your sense of the degree of support for reform by local officials -- elected and appointed?  Are those in favor a small far-sighted minority or are those opposed the minority?

A: It is impossible to generalize regarding leadership at the local level for fundamental change in the structure of our municipal governments and school districts.  However, there is good evidence that some leadership is being exercised and that business interests as well as the general public is responding.  For example, Nassau County voters approved a referendum to change the county-wide assessor from an elected to an appointed position in last week's election. Several towns in Onondaga County eliminated elective tax receiver positions, and they also had a very successful police consolidation there.  The willingness of local leaders to discuss change is increasing, and we saw in recent local political debates a perceptible shift - candidates generally wouldn't rule out consolidation or combination of services and many are very aggressively promoting it.  We will ultimately be successful when its riskier for a candidate for local office NOT to talk about consolidation and sharing, and we may already be on this path.

Here in Chautauqua County, the BOCES Superintendent is convening a restructuring committee much like that recommended in the Report of the Commission on Local Government Efficiency and Competitiveness.  My sense is that the business community is strongly in support of consolidation and that the current fiscal crisis gives us an opportunity for success which may have not been possible in previous times.  At the same time, I must admit that many will argue that things should continue as they always have.  Since we really cannot maintain the current expenditure patterns, and I think most people recognize this, we have to tip the balance in favor of consolidating districts, or much more broadly combining services.  I believe that argument is taking hold across the state.

 

Q: The Olean Times Herald recently reported strong opposition by residents of the Portville to a proposal to convert the Town Highway Superintendent from an elected to an appointed postion.  Residents of Speculator in Hamilton County voted not to long ago against dissolution of their village.   Why in your opinion are these reforms facing so much public opposition?

A: I am not sure why residents of Portville or Speculator voted as they did in recent elections.  Usually this is a question of feeling that the local identity is to be lost if we change our governmental system.  In my own experience, however, both here in New York and elsewhere, there can be a strong sense of identity without having local elected officials.  I also think that the environment will change as more and more areas look at consolidation proposals.  The conversation has already changed in many ways, with both local leaders and citizens raising bold consolidation and service sharing proposals that they might not have raised in prior years.  That's really perhaps the most important thing to work on, better information and assistance for localities to make changes.  Over time, individual successes will be replicated, and with aggressive state-level support we can have a snowball effect.

 

Q: The first recommendation of the Commission on Local Government Efficiency was that an executive-level Center for Local Government Efficiency be established.  Why is this needed and do you expect Governor Paterson to established such a Center given current fiscal constraints facing New York?

A: Finally, and most importantly, we should create a Center for Local Government Efficiency in the Executive Chamber without any additional State expenditure. This Center could aggressively promote and assist local efficiency initiatives, building partnerships with local leaders. It would send a strong signal that the Paterson Administration will help lead transformative changes.  The Department of State should continue to award local efficiency grants and provide technical assistance in their areas of expertise, but these activities will not substitute for the effort we recommend, involving many agencies and being directly accountable to the Governor.

A central policy shop and one-stop resource for local leaders can encourage bold local action, promote mandate relief and reassure the county and municipal leaders, especially those Upstate, that see restructuring as vital to their region’s long-term survival. Lastly, the Center would be in a position to follow up on the school efficiency ideas generated by the Suozzi Commission. This is vital to reigning in school expenditures, as the State Education Department has never truly had a cost-containment focus, and is not prepared to respond quickly to this urgent need.