If we may quote Buffalo Springfield, there’s something happening here and what it is ain’t exactly clear.

While this classic expression of befuddlement can be applied to just about everything in American life, especially as the presidential election slouches toward its horrifying (or maybe joyful?) climax next week, your Editorial Team is referring to the controversy surrounding the county’s Proposition 2, now appearing on the back of a ballot near you. (Kingston Wire is working on a deep-dive story about the matter which may or may not get done before this editorial. Check back for a link.)

Normally, ballot propositions don’t cause much of a stir, which is one of the reasons they’re frequently forgotten by many voters. Prop 2, however, has a little bit more of an interesting backstory. Ostensibly, what it would do, if approved by voters, give the legislature the power to confirm (or not) certain public officials whose jobs are currently only subject to the approval of the county executive. The gigs are director of Real Property Tax Services, Personnel Department director, the county attorney and the director of the Department of Weights and Measures.

This part we like. Since we started having county executives 15 years ago, the power in county government has dramatically shifted from the county legislature to the executive. The legislature could still do a better job of asserting itself in its dealings with the county exec, but considering the political landscape these days, we are not holding our breath. So we see this part of Prop 2 as a good first step in the rebalancing of power.

It's the second part, though, that’s causing the ruckus. Ostensibly, what it would do is make some new rules for the County Comptroller’s Office and the comptroller, currently March Gallagher. Approval of the measure by voters will establish a two-year prior county residence requirement for the comptroller, a county residency requirement for those named in the comptroller’s line of succession. It would give the legislature the right to veto the comptroller’s line of succession and forbid the comptroller from earning outside income.

It's always tempting to ascribe changes like these to political infighting; in county Democratic politics, Gallagher's become the kid on the playground nobody likes to hang out with. This happens a lot with comptrollers as they’re the ones whose job it is to call others on their bullshit; even the jovial and personable county comptroller Elliott Auerbach became the target of a campaign of vengeance against him waged by the county executive. (For what, we were never quite sure, but we remember the executive at that time definitely didn’t like to be contradicted. About anything by anyone. Imagine what it would have been like if Jim Quigley had won instead of Auerbach … )

In an op-ed posted to Kingston Wire last Friday, Gallagher wrote that this part unfairly singled out one county official for a more restrictive set of rules than those the county exec, sheriff and DA work under. Currently, all the top elected county officials can make their own succession plan, i.e., if a county exec leaves office in the midst of their term for Congress or a post in state government, the exec gets to designate their successor. Approval of Prop 2 would subject the comptroller’s — and only the comptroller’s — succession plan to the legislature’s approval.

So it’s easy to understand why Gallagher feels she’s being picked on. In her op-ed, she wrote: “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.” Like we said, the least popular person on the playground is the one who calls the other kids on their BS.

Something worth noting is that some members of the county Charter Revision Commission, who was charged to come up with changes to succession rules after the un-little d-democratic mess when Pat Ryan took his talents to Washington, are saying that what they recommended is not what ended up in the final proposition. Former Rochester town supervisor Mike Baden, who was not a member of the commission but a keen observer of county government, posted this as a comment under Gallagher’s op-ed: “What is most troubling is the fact much of the content in this proposition came about strictly in the Legislative Laws and Rules Committee. They changed or added to what the Charter Revision Commission had proposed after months of review. The changes came about in one less than two-hour meeting where two legislators just put in whatever they wanted. For that reason alone, this proposal should be voted down.”

We’re with Mike and March on this one. It seems to us that there needs to be more discussion about whether the comptroller should be subject to a stricter set of rules and legislative oversight which other top elected officials are not. We’d view favorably the banning of outside employment for the “Big Four” — a similar move was instituted in the state legislature as an anti-corruption measure, and it seems to have cut down on the shady stuff. But we cannot help but wonder if the recommended Prop 2 was weaponized by lawmakers to use against Gallagher. We don’t know why, exactly, but figuring out who Gallagher’s biggest enemy in county government and taking a look at that person’s motives and history with Gallagher would, it seems to your Editorial Team, be the best place to start.

In the meantime, we think Prop 2 should be voted down. Maintaining the independence and supporting the work of the county comptroller is a must if we’re going to have an efficient and honest county government. Any alteration of the comptroller’s prerogatives deserves far more deliberation and discussion than what’s taken place so far. Ulster voters would do well to send this plan back to the drawing board.