An
air of jubilation swept through the chamber of the Monroe County Legislature in
the final hour of November 12. Nineteen lawmakers from both parties had voted
to override County Executive Jack Doyle’s line-item veto of a bipartisan
budget. The plan that passed raised the property tax rate almost 2.5 percent in
order to restore some funding to heath, social service, and arts organizations
facing big cutbacks under Doyle’s budget proposal, which would not have raised
taxes.
           Cheers erupted from the gallery
among scores of citizens who’d spoken out against the cuts during a
two-and-a-half hour public hearing earlier that evening. Lawmakers who crafted
the bipartisan plan bore satisfied smiles. There were handshakes and pats on
the back.
           But as victories go, this one rings
hollow for many legislators who backed the bipartisan budget.
           Some Democrats fear their vote in
favor of a tax increase will come back to haunt them in future runs for
political office. Rumors that the Dems were set up by county Republican leaders
have circulated widely in the wake of the vote. And legislators on both sides
of the aisle who backed the bipartisan plan have grave doubts that the budget
they passed will work, or actually be implemented next year.
           Previous projections predicted a
2003 budget deficit of as much as $65 million. And as the Democrats, in
particular, point out, Doyle has the discretion not to spend money allocated to
restore some cuts if the county’s finances are pinched again next year.
           Passing the budget is only one small
step, says Democratic legislator Ron Thomas. “The fact is, it doesn’t mean
anything unless there’re some basic, fundamental, policy-changing decisions,”
he says.
           Some legislators “want to grandstand
and talk about, ‘Look how good I did with the county budget,'” Thomas
continues. “It doesn’t end there. You have not done anything unless you ensure
that those dollars are spent the way they were intended to be spent, and that
those savings that were predicted, that those things actually appear. If you
don’t monitor those things, we haven’t done anything.”
Chief among
both Democrats’ and Republicans’ concerns is the question of whether $30
million in savings projected to result from a reorganization of county health
and social service agencies will be realized in 2003.
           The bipartisan budget, which would
restore $6.4 million in funding for health and human service agencies and
various county programs, also sets aside $2 million to shore up the county’s
finances in the event that projection falls short. “That [shortfall] could
happen,” says Republican legislator Ray Santirocco, a key crafter of the
bipartisan proposal, “and $2 million isn’t a lot by any means.”
           “Throughout this budget process, we
had to kind of ignore the fact we just don’t believe that the revenue figures
and the savings figures are solid,” says Democratic Minority Leader Stephanie
Aldersley, another key player. “I would be very surprised if, even with what
we’ve done, we don’t find ourselves six months down the line with Jack
announcing that once again we’ve gone into deficit spending and we’re back on
the cutting floor again.”
           The size of the reserve fund proved
to be the only major sticking point in negotiations that melded the Democrats’
plan with a proposal previously announced by a coalition of legislators
affiliated with the new Independence Party caucus. The Dems’ plan called for
setting aside $500,000; the Indy proposal would have reserved $6 million.
           The size of the reserve “was a
deal-breaker,” says Santirocco, a member of the Indy caucus, “because I
wouldn’t give it up and, at one point, other people were not willing to support
it… Some Democrats initially said, ‘No, no, no, that’s a bad idea. It’s a slush
fund. It’s gonna get Doyle off the hook if [the reorganization] hits the
rocks.”
           Democratic legislator Jay Ricci was
one of those opposed to the size of the Indy plan’s reserve. “You want me to
give Jack Doyle a $5 million savings account so that, three years from now
[when County Legislature elections take place], he can tell everybody about
what a weenie I am for raising taxes?”
           During negotiations within her
caucus, Aldersley says, “it was tough for me to get people to say that they’re
going to set aside some money for a reserve fund when their programs are still
going under-funded. For every penny I went down, I would lose a member, and for
every penny I went up, I’d lose a member. What we came to is on a razor-thin
edge.”
           Ricci still doubts that the
bipartisan budget is “a workable plan.” But he says he supported it, in part,
because forcing the Republicans to pass their budget — and suffer the
political consequences if it unraveled — would hurt the community.
           “I didn’t see any way out,” Ricci
says. “Maybe we hold out, we say, ‘We’re not going to agree to [Doyle’s]
budget, we’re not going to come up with our own plan…’ Frankly, we don’t do
business this way, because we care too much about the community, but we could
have called their hand. We could have seen if they were bluffing.”
“After I woke
up the next morning, I said, ‘You know what? I think we got had,'” Ricci says.
           “The whole night was really weird,
how it was all orchestrated,” another Democratic legislator commented off the
record.
           The
legislative session did play out in dramatic fashion. First, a plan put forth
by the Republican leadership to restore some funding without raising taxes was
defeated 13-16 — two votes shy of the majority needed for passage.
Republicans hold a 16-13 majority in the Lej, but three Republicans affiliated
with the Indy caucus had joined all 13 Dems to craft the proposal that
ultimately passed.
           After that
proposal passed 16-13, the Lej went into a brief recess. The Republicans
huddled in a private meeting, and Doyle, a Republican, disappeared into his
office. When he emerged 15 minutes later to announce his veto, his staff passed
out an official letter to the clerk of the legislature — purportedly written
by Doyle during that brief interval — restating his long-held objection to a
property tax increase. Attached were the three pages of the bipartisan budget
proposal, with Doyle’s line-by-line approval or rejection of 52 specific restorations,
spending reductions, and revenue sources.
           When the
Lej reconvened to consider Doyle’s objections, three Republican legislators,
who’d refused to support the bipartisan proposal less than an hour before,
joined its 16 original backers to pass the plan 19-10 — one vote more than
was necessary to override the veto.
           “I think
we were set up,” Ricci says. “Why else would Doyle veto the budget that night,
just to make sure we had the votes to override it?”
           “The
reason I voted for it is because I was told that, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
there were enough people for the override,” Ricci continues.
           But how
anyone could have been certain there’d be enough votes for an override is still
a political mystery.
           Of the three Republicans who
changed their minds late in the game, at least two claim they never told anyone
of their intentions before their caucus met privately just before the vote.
           “I had not
told anybody, because I didn’t have any information available to me with regard
to the veto,” says Republican legislator Mike Hanna of Perinton. “I didn’t know
whether Jack was going to veto the whole thing, or veto a portion of it, or
maybe veto none of it, with the exception of the tax increase. So I couldn’t
discuss what I was going to do prior to [the veto].”
           Pieter Smeenk, another Perinton
Republican who voted for the override (Karla Boyce of Pittsford-Mendon was the
third), says: “I never technically, or in my heart, supported the budget as
amended by the bipartisan group. I voted for the override when I realized
earlier in the evening that, procedurally, it was going to be Jack Doyle’s
proposed budget with a few amendments, or the bipartisan budget with the
amendments.”
           Smeenk also says he was unaware that
either Hanna or Boyce would vote to override the veto prior to the Republicans’
private meeting during the recess.
           Santirocco
suspected Boyce would ultimately back the bipartisan plan, because she’d
previously expressed concerns about cuts to social services. But “Mike
surprised me,” he says of Hanna, and Santirocco says he’d “not talked to Pieter
directly” about his vote.
           Aldersley
says she was also in the dark. As the roll call on the override vote was
announced, “I was pinching myself,” she says. “I just had no idea.”
Several
legislators privately confirmed that as early as
last August, when Doyle announced his sweeping cuts, efforts were undertaken to
create a coalition of legislators who are either term-limited, or who represent
urban districts, to support a tax increase that would restore some funding.
           The idea:
to protect needy citizens (most of whom reside in the city) affected by the
cuts, while protecting the political futures of those county legislators who
can run for their seats again in 2005.
           As it
turned out, all six Republicans who voted to override the veto are
term-limited. However, among the Democrats, only seven of the 13 who voted to
raise taxes are term-limited. Ricci and Aldersley are among those Dems who
represent suburban districts and can run for another term. (Democratic
legislator Mitch Rowe — who represents parts of Greece, Gates, and
Irondequoit — can also run again in 2005.)
           Despite
the fact six Republicans voted for the bipartisan budget, Ricci says,
“Basically, the Democrats raised taxes and the Republicans didn’t. That’s the
way they’re going to play it in the next election.”
           “The thing
that made me the most suspicious,” Ricci says of the budget session, was that
county Republican Party Chairman Steve Minarik was in attendance, “and he
seemed pretty happy.”
           “I noticed
what Jay noticed,” Aldersley says of Minarik’s presence. “I think that Jay has
a point. And in point of fact, the administration is delighted to have the
extra funding and to have our side take the political heat.
           “So be
it,” she continues. “It was still the right thing to do.”
           Minarik
did not return calls seeking comment.
           Minarik’s
Democratic counterpart, county party chairman Ted O’Brien, expects Republicans
will use Democrats’ pro-tax-increase votes against them in future campaigns
with some success. “The unfortunate reality is that, for the voter who follows
this stuff in passing, the sense of urgency that really permeated that County
Legislature call is gonna be lost,” he says.
           However,
O’Brien dismisses rumors that the Dems were set up to vote for a politically
damaging tax increase, while allowing Doyle and the Republican leadership to
maintain their record of voting to keep taxes stable.
           “To the
extent that it’s characterized as a bipartisan budget, I think that reinforces
the idea that this is not just an attempt to save Jack Doyle,” O’Brien says.
“Clearly, one of the things that Jack Doyle’s not going to be able to say is
that during his administration there was never an increase in taxes, because
now there’s going to be. And he can’t blame it on the Democrats, because it was
a bipartisan effort.”
           “The more immediate race is next
year’s county executive race,” O’Brien says. “And I think we may have
established that the Doyle administration record is one that ultimately was
willing to produce a county budget that would have gutted this community and
set us back a lot.”
This article appears in Nov 20-26, 2002.
