As the full Legislature prepares to vote Monday on the proposal to eliminate the two-thirds requirement for accessing County reserve and contingency funds, I write as a concerned resident who believes this decision deserves deeper reflection.
This vote is not about party politics. It is about institutional safeguards.
For years, requiring a supermajority before tapping into reserve funds ensured that significant financial decisions reflected broad agreement. That higher threshold forced collaboration. It required persuasion. It demanded transparency. Most importantly, it protected taxpayers by ensuring that reserve dollars — our financial safety net — were accessed only with strong consensus.
Lowering the requirement to a simple majority changes that dynamic entirely.
Reserve funds are not routine operating dollars. They are the County’s fiscal backstop — intended for emergencies, downturns, and true contingencies. A supermajority standard recognized that drawing from those reserves should never be easy or automatic. It required elected officials to build bipartisan support before spending down savings.
That friction was not obstruction. It was accountability.
Reducing the threshold shifts power to whichever party holds a bare majority at any given time. It removes the structural incentive for negotiation and compromise. And while today’s majority may feel confident in exercising that authority responsibly, the rules you set now will govern future Legislatures as well.
Precedent matters.
If the supermajority requirement is eliminated, it will be far easier — politically and procedurally — to access reserves whenever votes are available. Over time, that can erode fiscal discipline and public trust.
Government works best when guardrails are stable, predictable, and insulated from short-term political convenience. Institutional protections exist not because they are convenient, but because they prevent impulsive or narrowly supported decisions involving taxpayer money.
As you prepare to vote, I respectfully urge you to consider the long-term implications of this change. Ask whether lowering this safeguard strengthens public confidence — or weakens it. Ask whether the County is better served by consensus-driven fiscal decisions — or majority-driven access to reserves.
The vote Monday is about more than a rule. It is about the architecture of accountability in Dutchess County government.
Once lowered, that bar will not easily be raised again.
Respectfully,
Ed Kowalski
The Valley Viewpoint 