50.0°,
Overcast Quarrel over charter revision at council meeting
Glen Cove’s City Council meeting erupted in chaos on Tuesday night, as officials debated whether to hold a public hearing to discuss the city’s charter regarding eligibility, terms, compensation, and oath for city officers. The agenda item was tabled.
The city’s code states that each officer, unless otherwise provided in the charter, shall be elected for the term of two years from and including the first day of January succeeding his or her election, and until the election and qualifications of his or her successor.
The matter has been discussed for decades, but in 2018, Glen Cove’s policymakers heard a proposal from Carolyn Wilson of the Charter Review Committee to study whether to make certain fundamental changes to the city charter, including amendments regarding councilmembers’ term lengths, term limits and whether the terms should be staggered. That commission has since expired its term.
Members like Councilman Kevin Maccarone said they were initially in favor of the agenda item when first discussed at June’s precouncil meeting but expressed concern about following through with a public hearing during the council’s summer session.
“We’ve had committees in the past that have been informed to explore this stuff,” Maccarone said. “I think it’s something we need more input into. I don’t think it’s jeopardizing anything if we hold off on this and remove this from the agenda for now so we can continue the conversation.”
Councilwoman Danielle Fugazy Scagliola countered Maccarone’s remarks asking for clarification on his hesitation about a public hearing. Public hearings can remain open until a resolution is proposed, Scagliola said, citing a 2023 hearing with the city’s business improvement district over vacant storefronts, which still remains open.
“What’s the harm in letting people talk about things?” Scagliola asked. “Why can’t we just have a conversation? What’s the difference if we start a conversation with the public now? It’s not a resolution.”
Councilwoman Marsha Silverman agreed, adding that a public hearing is meant to gather input. Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck’s election platform discussed amending the city charter’s election terms, Silverman said. But when she brought the issue up, after the recent election, Silverman said she was told the matter is a low priority for the administration. She said she hopes that the next council meeting, scheduled for July 25, will give the public enough time to research the charter.
“It’s time to hear from the public and hear what they want,” Silverman said. “To stop and thwart the public input makes absolutely no sense. No decision is being made tonight.”
Councilman Jack Mancusi said that although he was in favor of the public hearing during the last precouncil meeting, he agreed with Maccarone after conducting his own research from the New York State Division of Local Government Services, an advisory on the revision of city charters. He cited that proposed changes to the city’s charter can be conducted via a mayoral-appointed charter commission committee, voter petitions to start a charter commission, or direct legislative action through the municipal home-rule law. Although this option is infrequently used, it is possible for a city council to directly revise a city charter.
Silverman told Mancusi that it’s not in the council’s authority to revise the charter and stressed that she is requesting input from the public to request a ballot referendum for the upcoming November election.
Mancusi said he is against any discussion of changing the charter without the creation of a charter commission.
A chaotic discussion ensued with most of the council members interrupting each other. Silverman said the discussion has become partisan. She added that Mancusi is unaware of the charter’s history since this is his first term as a councilman.
“That’s my point,” Mancusi said. “Is it partisan that you cut me off and didn’t let me finish speaking? I didn’t interrupt anybody else.”
During the commotion, Silverman expressed her frustration with John Maccarone, Chairman of the city’s Republican Committee, and father of councilman Maccarone.
“You’re showing your cards, it is political,” Silverman said. “Under a Republican city attorney, a charter review commission was created, and for three years they worked until they realized that that city attorney had not properly informed them of the right procedures.”
Silverman said that she and Scagliola reviewed the findings of the commission and found the charter revisions are “way overdue.”
Scagliola said she was approached by two other councilmembers who expressed interest in the hearing, and their change of heart at the council meeting was concerning.
“I want to just say this that’s upsetting,” Scagliola said. “This is the third time that we’ve had a precouncil meeting that went one way, and then somehow, we get to the meeting, but things have been skewed.”
Councilwoman Barbara Peebles stated that she felt rushed to hold a public hearing.
Scagliola suggested extending the public hearing and added that no votes were requested during the meeting.
“We have all discussed this in the past,” Panzenbeck said. “I think the issue here is that it was presented to the council at the last minute the night before the hearing had to be posted. There’s really a lot more to discuss than just the mayor and council’s term.”
Silverman continued, saying she wanted a public hearing, Maccarone interrupted her saying the council should move forward with the vote, which would exclude the public's input.
