Clarkstown Town Supervisor Works From Two Directions to Overturn Term Limits Before Next Election

Rockland Daily Staff

Last night, Clarkstown held a highly contentious Town Board Meeting to revisit the issue of term limits and deal with the fallout of the Town Supervisor suing his own town to overturn the term limit law before the next elections, thereby allowing him to run again.

Supervisor George Hoehmann is trying to get the law overturned either through a normal board voting process or by legal grounds, as reported here in Rockland Daily. The present law in Haverstraw states that someone can only serve eight consecutive years in an elected position. The lawsuit claims the term limit law enacted in 2014 is faulty as it relied on a supermajority vote instead of passing it with a voter referendum.

"The only thing that's changed since eight years ago is that Mr. Hoehmann's had his eight years, his term is up, and he doesn't want to leave," says Pamela Hudson, Clarkstown Ward 4 council member, according to News12.

During the highly contentious meeting, the vast majority of those in attendance denounced the supervisor's actions accusing him of ignoring his own conflict of interest by even participating in the meeting.

Dissatisfaction was also expressed on social media, where one Clarkstown resident stated, "Supervisor Hoehman is suing us - the Town of Clarkstown. And he is making the taxpayers of the town pay to be suited. And we will be defended by, wait for it, an attorney he appointed."

Others complained vehemently that the time of the Wednesday night Town Board meeting was made an hour earlier for an executive session at 6 p.m.. saying the purpose of the time swap was "to thwart people opposed to the repeal of term limits."

Unswayed by public pressure, Hoehmann ignored the public's comments, ignored his own conflicts, and then voted on removing the term limits he had voted to put into place eight years ago.

The board voted 3-2 to repeal the term limit law, but a supermajority of at least four of the five council votes is required to repeal the law. 

Even the vote by the board on hiring outside counsel, with the lawsuit's two plaintiffs recusing themselves, remained unclear. The issue was whether the 2-1 vote in favor was enough to allow the board to seek an attorney, as it is possible that by law, the council would require a vote in favor from all three non-recused members.