69°
YORKTOWN, N.Y. – Members of Yorktown Citizens for a DPW said eliminating the highway superintendent as an elected position would not only save the town $250,000 but also give the Town Board more authority over roadwork and engineering decisions.
The current highway superintendent maintained the group's figures were skewed, while Supervisor Michael Grace said he didn't need complete control over the highway department and questioned tampering with the town's charter.
A spirited work session that turned into a quasi-public hearing Wednesday night at Yorktown Town Hall featured both sides of the controversial debate arguing their points but reaching no conclusion.
"Having the highway superintendent under my thumb is not particularly attractive to me," Grace said. "The criticism that I have no control over the highway superintendent and can't tell him what to do is a complete misconception."
Aaron Bock, a former town supervisor who noted 20 years ago the Town Board spent $40,000 for a study on a DPW, spoke on behalf of Yorktown Citizens for a DPW and said an elected, independent highway superintendent handcuffs the board's decision-making.
"We're not talking about personalities. We're talking about the organizational structure of the town," Bock said. "I have no personal criticism with any individuals. We believe there is a newer and better way to structure town government."
Group members said they spoke to more than 30 municipalities in 12 counties as part of their research. One municipality, neighboring Cortlandt, eliminated the highway superintendent as an elected position in 1999, but some speakers said it shows in the quality of their roads.
"The DPWs in Cortlandt and Peekskill are no match for the highway department in Yorktown and I think that's because of no accountability," said Anthony Bazzo, a taxi company owner who supports Yorktown residents voting for the highway head. "I think there is a vendetta going on here that has been going on for a long time."
Former Council member Tony Grasso echoed Bazzo's sentiments about Yorktown Citizens for a DPW targeting Highway Superintendent Eric DiBartolo, and DiBartolo agreed.
"Contrary to what people want to say, it's personal and that's okay," said DiBartolo, who has held his post since 1996 and has announced he will not be seeking reelection next year. "I think for the last 16 years people are pretty happy. When you elect someone to this job you hold their feet to the fire and nobody's feet have been held more to the fire over the last four years than mine."
Yorktown Citizens for a DPW has been pushing the Town Board to schedule a public hearing on their proposal in August to allow time for a referendum to be held in November but the board declined to take such action Wednesday night.
"This is a phenomenal opportunity for 18,000 residents to make an informed decision," said former Supervisor Susan Siegel, a member of the committee. "Eliminating the highway superintendent is the means to getting an effective DPW."
Comments (3)
Yes. I also watched this meeting. Mr. Grace interrupted speakers ... Particularly pro DPW speakers, and it seemed deliberately meant to throw them off their points. No way this man is impartial. Not only did he interrupt, but he repeated himself and blurred the DPW speakers' intents. As I said, no impartiality from mr. Grace. He makes himself very clear.
First, I would like to thank the department heads for their presentations made at the meeting. Their presentations showed the public that no matter what goes on politically in Yorktown, they are professionals and the workers in those departments are without a doubt some of the hardest working people you will ever know. Thank God for the people that make up our work force. Mr. Bazzo and Mr. Grasso along with some board members made fact that the elimination of the elected superintendent of highways position has become a personal vendetta. Let me say this. It does become personal when you talk about eliminating an elected position held by the same person for the past 16 years. How can it not? If people think back to the past election, there was no choice to be made for the superintendent of highways. Mr. DiBartolo was endorsed by both political parties. Two other gentlemen vied for the position. They had to campaign in two political primaries to be put on the general election ballot. Neither won. The numbers showed that too many registered voters did not turn out for the primary elections and Mr. DiBartolo narrowly defeated Mr. Gardiner who was one of the candidates running against him. Since the person elected to that office is in office for four years, there is nothing that can be done about removing him from office. Another four years with the same person in office. Take a look at the recent State Comptroller Audit Report. Both the town board and the highway superintendent let the town down. There was no accountability of the highway superintendent by the town board; that's what the audit showed. Now something can be done about this. By doing away with the elected position of highway superintendent and appointing a person to that position, the town board would have direct control. They would have immediate and final say in what goes on with that department. The workers will still get the work done! Foremen and other members of the department would be allowed to function as they should according to their job descriptions. It is not necessary for the highway superintendent to be working side-by-side with the workers because he feels can control what goes on. It is more important for the highway superintendent to be able to delegate responsibility because of trust in his people. Leadership by example is fine but leadership through delegation is just as important. I'm for a DPW and hope that I will be allowed to vote one way or another about its existence this coming general election.
I watched the meeting on television and frankly was appalled by the rudeness of Supervisor Grace who constantly interrupted the committee’s speaker during his presentation. Also, if the meeting was supposed to be to provide residents with information, why wasn’t the committee given the same opportunity as the supervisor to respond to speakers’ comments, especially when the comments dealt with facts?
I thought the committee had some interesting points to make – but also so did the department heads who explained why they didn’t think a DPW was necessary. That’s why I agree with the speaker who said that the real issue was the right of residents to be able to vote on an issue that will impact on their services and taxes. And, as she explained, being able to exercise that right to vote is completely in the hands of our elected town board.