When the other side first reached out to talk about changing the structure of county government, I was skeptical.

The timing was odd. We’ve had a lot go down in recent months, including a failed lawsuit over even-year elections, a $100 million publicly funded aquarium stripped of transparency measures, a sewage building that workers can’t breathe in, and changes in childcare funding creating a situation that still leaves parents with more questions than answers.

So when this conversation about term limits and four-year terms came up, I assumed it was a pivot, a distraction, or maybe a soft attempt to smooth over recent resignations and the questions surrounding them. I thought, “What of these are we trying to skip past this time?” Instead of focusing on those issues, we want to move past the hard questions and move to one that, in my opinion is “easier.”

But after sitting with it, I said fine. Let’s talk democracy reform. Because if I’m being honest, I’m questioning the job we’re doing too. The public deserves better from all of us, and maybe putting this question to voters is the accountability moment we need.

Let’s start with four-year terms.

I support them. Two-year terms rush everything. You spend one year getting your feet under you and the next year running again. It’s a cycle that prioritizes short-term optics over long-term strategy. With four-year terms, there’s time to do the job, time to learn, build, govern, and deliver. That’s not about protecting politicians, it’s about protecting good governance.

Next, let’s talk about even-year elections.

I supported the move, and the courts have now upheld it as constitutional. Here’s a report - > https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2025/05/07/appeals-court-rules-new-york-s-new-even-year-election-law-is-constitutional

The reality is that even-year elections get more people to the polls. That’s a fact. When the process began and the Legislature funded a lawsuit against it, I thought we were moving in the wrong direction. Now the tone seems to be changing, and it seems that in order to limit the damage from that change of heart, this was stumbled upon. So yes, if we are to move to 4 year terms, I want four-year terms to coincide with presidential elections. That’s when voter turnout is highest. And if we’re going to make changes in the name of democracy, let’s not do it in the years when fewer people show up.

More of my colleagues want to align it with gubernatorial years instead. Lower turnout, maybe less competition, fewer surprises. I don’t share that fear. Our society is used to voting every other year for mid terms, so I think that’s a commonly enough used voter pool to trust important decisions to. I trust the people to vote. And I trust the system more when more people are part of it.

Now let’s talk term limits.

Three terms is too many. If we’re serious about term limits, make them real. Two terms, eight years, is enough. That’s two terms to get things done, mentor new leaders, and make room for fresh voices. I’m not interested in a structure that locks the same people into power for decades. That’s not how democracy thrives.

And I’m firmly against grandfathering in current elected officials.

If the voters approve term limits, that change should start with us, not the next generation. If you're going to hit eight years in your next term, that term should be your last. Period.

Will that mean some of us end up serving nine, ten, or even eleven years based on when we started? Yes. And I’m okay with that. The point isn’t to make a perfect grid. The point is to stop pretending that permanent incumbency is a good thing.

Democracy works best when more people are involved. That includes new candidates, new perspectives, and new energy. When you know your time is limited, you're incentivized to lead with purpose. You have to think beyond yourself. You have to develop a bench. You have to make sure the values you stand for are rooted in shared principle, not just your personal comfort in the seat.

Ultimately, I’m glad this will go to the voters.

It’s our community’s decision to make, and it’s our community’s voice that matters most. But I do wish this ballot initiative went to next year’s electorate. We already know that 2026 will have higher turnout than this year. Why not give this big, important decision to the biggest, most representative group of voters?

Still, here we are.

If we’re going to talk about changing democracy, we should do it clearly and transparently, with every intention of getting it right. Not just for the moment, but for the future.

I just wish this same outreach had come on other issues too, like the aquarium using questionable funding mechanisms, or the $23 million sewage building, or the childcare overhaul, or the “specific funds set aside to address lead poisoning.” These are conversations I would’ve welcomed. These are moments where public input was needed just as badly.

And maybe that’s the biggest lesson here: if we want to strengthen democracy, we should start by using it, early, often, and always.