As the current comptroller of Ulster County, I urge voters to reject Proposition 2. While there may be positive parts of this proposal, cloaked in this measure are restrictive provisions that target the Comptroller’s Office, undermining its effectiveness and independence in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used wisely.

The Charter Revision Commission, which convened in 2022 and 2023, sought to update our county's governing document. However, the proposed amendments considered by the legislature diverged significantly from the commission's original recommendations. Most notably, the changes that did not require voter approval failed due to a controversial shift of appointment authority over the county planner to the county executive.

While I supported various necessary changes to the Charter, including banning outside income for the Commissioner of Finance — who recently pleaded guilty to grand larceny—Proposition 2 imposes these restrictions solely on the Comptroller’s Office. I do not hold outside employment and I do not object to the proposal applying to the Comptroller’s position; however, there should be parity with the most senior financial position in Ulster County government- the Commissioner of Finance.

Additionally, Proposition 2 mandates legislative approval of the Comptroller’s succession plan, a requirement not imposed on the county clerk, county sheriff or county executive. Why should the county's financial oversight be subject to a political approval process while the public safety or leadership of the county itself is not? This inconsistency suggests a troubling trend of undermining the comptroller’s authority. These changes will hamper the effectiveness of the Comptroller’s Office and appears punitive for doing the job of oversight on the other branches of government.

Moreover, the proposition introduces a residency requirement for those named in the succession plan. While I believe that the comptroller should reside in Ulster County, mandating residency for potential successors limits the talent pool and complicates an already-challenging recruitment landscape. It’s important to remember that current law already requires the comptroller to live in the county; this new requirement is redundant and unnecessary.

Ballot initiatives often pass with little opposition, and I acknowledge that I lack the resources for a large campaign against this one. However, I urge you to consider the implications of these proposed changes. Do they truly serve to enhance our government’s efficiency or accountability? Or are they an attempt to undermine the independence of the Comptroller’s Office for reasons that remain unclear?

I ask you to join me in voting NO on Proposition 2. And then call your county legislator to create a sensible and fair approach that doesn’t restrict the independence of the Comptroller’s Office. Let’s ensure that our county government remains fair and effective for all.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the writer; they do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Kingston Wire Editorial Team.