In Suffolk, exec balances the budget

Steve Levy is Suffolk County Executive. John V.N. Klein, Michael LoGrande, Patrick Halpin and Robert Gaffney are former Suffolk County Executives.

In the public sector, personnel makes up the largest share of operating costs. One of the most effective tools to control costs, and ultimately property taxes, is the ability to manage how and when those positions are filled.

In 1958, when the Suffolk County Charter established the office of county executive, it designated that person as the chief executive officer of county government, as well as its chief budget officer.

Suffolk legislators are now considering a change to the charter that would strip away the county executive's ability to control costs and manage cash flow by giving the authority to other countywide elected officials - the comptroller, county clerk, district attorney, sheriff and treasurer - to fill positions in their departments, without regard to budget implications.

The five of us have sat in the executive office, and we believe that this change is far from benign or ministerial. It would in fact have profound, negative effects on county taxpayers, since it would essentially make six budget officers, not one.

The day-in, day-out responsibility for balancing the county's budget and controlling costs rests with the county executive alone. Requiring him or her to maintain a balanced budget throughout the year, without the ability to control positions in five large county agencies, is akin to asking someone to drive a truck without brakes.

The legendary sign on President Harry Truman's desk said it best: The Buck Stops Here.

If property taxes rose or deleterious service cuts had to be implemented to make up for a budget imbalance, the public would properly look to the one person they elected to manage: the county executive.

The debate over the legislature's proposal shouldn't be about personalities, political parties or presumed power. The framers of the Suffolk County Charter - as well as the electorate, which voted to enact its provisions - were wise to place this important budgetary tool in the hands of the one person most accountable to the public.

History has shown that when the tool is removed from the executive office, personnel costs can spiral upward.

For example, here in Suffolk, positions on the Board of Elections don't require county executive authorization. And year in and year out, the Board of Elections exceeds its budgeted amounts for personnel; by more than $800,000 this year alone. Similarly, the Vanderbilt Museum this year has exceeded its personnel budget by $400,000 - despite its financial crisis. These overruns come back to the county executive, who needs to balance them with offsets in spending from other areas.

In Albany County, the change the Suffolk legislature now seeks was implemented in 1995. The result? Positions in executive departments decreased by 20 percent, while the number of positions in departments headed by other countywide elected officials increased by 37 percent. The explanation is quite simple: There is no incentive for these other officials, who do not send out a tax bill and are not required to balance the entire budget, to hold the line on costs.

At a time when citizens are disenchanted with the size and cost of government across the country, a proposal that would scatter and diffuse accountability will result only in greater confusion about who's in charge of Suffolk's government spending and budget. It will raise the ire of taxpayers.

County legislators who are expected to vote on the proposed legislation this month should properly familiarize themselves with decisions of the courts - including Caputo, Romaine and Catterson v. Halpin - which have already upheld the executive's sole responsibility as chief budget officer. They should recognize that the framers of the Suffolk County Charter, the electorate and the judicial branch have all acknowledged the importance of maintaining budgetary accountability with a chief budget officer in a single office.