Interview with Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy

Interview by Raymond J. Keating

February 20, 2009

In 2003, Democrat Steve Levy won the race for Suffolk County executive largely by running as more of a conservative on fiscal issues than his Republican opponent. By the time he was up for re-election in 2007, he had the backing of both Democrats and Republicans.

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy shared some of his experiences and thoughts on the big issues facing Long Island in an interview with Long Island Sentinel.

Legislator vs. Executive

Sentinel: You have been on the job as Suffolk County executive for over five years now. How has this job differed from your previous positions in the county legislature and state assembly? What have been the biggest surprises?

Steve Levy: There are some significant differences between being an executive and a legislator. 

A legislator has a great deal of freedom, freedom to pick and choose his or her pet issues. He or she also has the freedom to say yes to every special interest that crosses his or her desk without being burdened by having to balance a budget.

Legislators can vote yes on every spending increase and then turn around and vote against the budget as a whole to appear to be fiscal conservatives. Of course it’s irresponsible, but no one really follows up to point out the inconsistencies because the public perceives the budget as being the responsibility of the executive. 

When you’re an executive, the burden is upon you to make sure that the numbers add up. It means you need a thick skin because you’re the individual who is going to have to say no. 

Secondly, while a legislator can choose his or her pet issues. The executive must juggle every issue from every corner of the county and the budget -- and juggle them simultaneously. If something goes wrong in a department, it’s the executive who’s blamed, not the legislature. 

Finally, as a legislator you may get one call a week from a major newspaper. As executive you may get five calls a day requiring you to research the issue and develop a response in real time. In other words, you may plan your day to do A, B and C and wind up doing X, Y and Z instead.

Accomplishment and Disappointment

Sentinel: Which of your accomplishments do you see as most important? And what have you been unable to get done so far that you expected to be completed already, and why?

Steve Levy: Perhaps my most satisfying accomplishment was exercising the type of fiscal responsibility that brought us five consecutive years of general fund tax cuts or tax freezes. In two of those years, I actually reduced spending from the previous year, something that had never happened in 35 prior years of record keeping in Suffolk County. We have been able to control spending and taxes, maintain services and also raise our bond rating to the highest level in our County’s history. 

I have been disappointed in not being able to pass legislation that would privatize the County’s nursing home. We continuously lose $10 to $15 million a year providing a service that can be delivered just as well, if not better, by the private sector. All of the merits are on our side, but the pressure from the 250 employees at this facility and their union has been so intense that it has backed off legislators from supporting these measures, even though privately they admit it’s the right thing to do. Every patient can remain in his or her bed with a prestigious private institution taking over the duties at no cost to the county. It seems like a no brainer, but sometimes common sense in government doesn’t prevail. 

Police Work

Sentinel: You have placed a significant emphasis on trying to have county government run more efficiently. How successful do you think you’ve been? And is there any way to institutionalize those efficiencies so that they will carry through to your eventual successors?

Steve Levy: My Administration has been remarkably successful in making our county government more efficient. Perhaps the best example is what we’ve done in the police department. The status quo theory was that you had to continuously spend more money in the police district empire in order to keep crime under control. We proved that’s not true. 

The problem was not that there were too few officers, the problem was that they were deployed in the wrong places. Too many were behind desks or doing non-police functions, such as computer programming, motor vehicle repair or audio visual work. Instead of blindly hiring new class after new class, we civilianized the department – that is, we hired a $40,000 civilian to do the work of a $130,000 officer and redeployed these individuals back on to street patrol. This alleviated the need for new police classes thereby saving millions of dollars.

The Tax Question

Sentinel: In this tough economy, can the county avoid tax increases this year? Can you highlight some areas where the county can find savings on the spending side of the budget? In general, how would you rate the legislature’s performance on budget matters over the past five years?

Steve Levy: In this tough economy, I will do all I can to try to avoid raising taxes. Last year, we faced a slowing economy and a budget shortfall of about $150 million. I insisted that the county be proactive and put together a bipartisan group of legislators starting in February to prepare a budget restructuring plan. I successfully shepherded through a package that included tens of millions of dollars in savings through the shrinking of government via an early retirement plan, the removal of steps salary increases for management personnel, the requirement that county employees use generic as opposed to name brand drugs, and a selling of the county’s health insurance processing program. 

This year with the collapse of the stock market, housing market and the credit markets, we are facing an even more difficult financial situation. Once again, I am being proactive in calling together a group of bipartisan legislators. I will continue to push for the privatizing of our county’s nursing home, as well as a number of other savings, including: employee give backs in the area of clothing, meal allowance, and step increases; promoting the concept of making money through selling naming rights to private entities; consolidating services; further cutting the use of assigned vehicles; and employing more flexible work hours to reduce overtime. 

The Legislature has had a mixed record on their performance on budget matters. Legislators have tended to come together in a bipartisan fashion to support the majority of the restructuring measures that we have placed in our emergency bills. The Legislature has been problematic, however, during the normal budget process wherein it would significantly add to my proposed budget by promoting numerous additional programs without properly funding them. Legislators would refuse to cut any real program to help pay for their new ones and instead would create phantom revenues in the budget that would never materialize.

Sheriffs on the Roads

Sentinel: You’ve had quite a high profile battle with Suffolk police, or at least, those representing the police. What’s been the bottom line so far on having sheriffs patrolling state roads, like the Long Island Expressway and Sunrise Highway? Where have you found savings on the police front so far, and what more can be done? Are actions needed at the state level; and if so, what? Have Long Island’s state representatives been helpful or not?

Steve Levy: My order substituting the sheriffs for police officers to patrol our state highways has been an unqualified success. Other officials in past decades had threatened to do something to avoid these unnecessary costs of having county police patrol these state roads, but failed to pull the trigger to make anything happen. I had a plan consummated with the State Homeland Security department until the Governor’s office reversed it. I would not let this setback stand in our way of providing efficiencies for our taxpayers. The sheriffs had long been patrolling east end roads and had the training and the ability to patrol in the west end as well. 

The Sheriff indicated to me that because of the greater flexibility he has over his staff relative to the police department and the fact that we have just graduated a class of new sheriffs that he would have the ability to fill in the gaps if I were to pull the police from these roads. 

The average police officer makes $42,000 more than the average sheriff. But the biggest savings came from the fact that I was able to redeploy almost 60 officers to street patrol from these highways. That provided more coverage where we need them -- to keep us safe in our neighborhoods -- while also alleviating the need to hire the same number of officers in a new police class. Sixty officers can cost approximately $8 million over the course of a year. The extra police in our local precincts have also helped reduce police overtime. The deputies have been doing a fine job keeping our roads safe. All of the doomsday scare tactics have proven to be unsubstantiated. 

It is our belief that the state should assume responsibility for its own roads. Thus far, Long Island state representatives have not been helpful in this endeavor. In fact, when the PBA went to Albany to lobby against this proposal many, but not all, of these representatives were quick to write letters on the union’s behalf, which I believe contributed to the Governor’s reversal of the decision by Homeland Security to provide us with troopers. 

The Immigration Issue

Sentinel: Immigration has been a hot button issue in Suffolk. Let’s get your positions clear. Do you think immigration has been a plus or minus for Long Island’s economy – feel free to address legal immigration and illegal together or separately? Should businesses be responsible for playing immigration police, or is that the federal government’s job? Do you oppose hiring halls altogether, or just taxpayer funding for such halls?

Steve Levy: When discussing the issue of immigration, I am dismayed by the fact that the media continuously fails to distinguish legal from illegal immigration. I am a strong promoter of legal immigration. It is what helped make America great. It adds to our cultural diversity and acts as an economic plus. 

Illegal immigration is something I oppose, first and foremost, because it is indeed illegal. If we don’t wish to seriously enforce our borders or our immigration laws, then let’s stop being hypocrites and make it an open border society. These laws are on the books for a reason. It should be the American citizens who determine how many people come in from around the world. It shouldn’t be those outside of our borders who make those decisions for us. We have very legitimate concerns about national security, our environment and proper work place standards. There may be times when we want to dramatically increase the numbers we would like to have entered into the country. On the other hand, there are times where we might wish to curtail the number. Ultimately, that decision should be made by the American people and not forced upon us. 

There is also the question of fairness. There are over six billion people on this earth, with probably half of them wishing to come to America for a better life. Unless we control our borders, how are we to say “no” to anyone who wishes to come into the country? A nation without borders can no longer be considered a nation. It offends me that some of the politically correct in the media or in various advocacy groups demonize those who are in favor of a controlled legal immigration policy as being xenophobic, intolerant or bigoted. 

I’m a believer that we should have more legal immigration. It has worked well with the seasonal employees who have been hired over the years on our East End farms. We know the individuals coming here are vetted, and that their taxes are paid and that exploitation is minimized. 

Illegal immigration leads to the exploitation of those here underground. It leads to an underground economy where some businesses cheat at the expense of those who play by the rules. Why should a company that uses illegal labor and fails to pay health insurance, worker’s compensation or unemployment insurance be allowed to get a competitive advantage for a county bid over those that try to do the right thing and play by the rules?

Finally, when I was growing up, I was taught by my parents, by my religious leaders and by my school teachers to play by the rules and to be fair. What is fair about allowing some people to cut the line and enter here illegally without any recourse, while others who try to play by the rules to get in here the right way are often on a waiting list for a decade or more? Looking the other way towards those who come here illegally is a slap in the face to those who patiently wait on line to come in here through the proper channels. 

Businesses should be responsible for checking the immigration status of their employees, as is required by federal law. With the new e-verification system, this is not a difficult thing to do. Our businesses, however, are being put in a precarious situation because of the lax attitudes of our government. If you cheat as a business and hire those here illegally, you get a competitive advantage. On the other hand, if you try to play by the rules, you are safe from being fined, but you may very well be put out of business because the government is allowing the cheaters to prosper at your expense.

“Open Space” Preservation

Sentinel: Do you see a conflict between local government open space purchases and farmland preservation programs, and the need for more affordable housing? If not, why not?

Steve Levy: I do not see a conflict between our desire for open space preservation and the need for more affordable housing. Before I came into office, the discussion revolved around choosing one of the two. I believe with proper planning we can both preserve our beautiful open spaces and provide for more economic growth and needed affordable housing. The key is identifying those lands we want to purchase and those lands we would like to develop. I have been a big proponent of redeveloping the pre-developed areas. We are doing so with the Westhampton Airport property, the Yaphank county industrial corridor and the Pilgrim State Psychiatric Institution, to name a few. It should not be forgotten that our open space purchases are helpful in preserving our tourism and agricultural economies, which are billion-dollar industries. 

Layers of Government

Sentinel: What can be done to reduce the layers of government on Long Island? For example, most other places around the country do not have both county and town governments the way we do. Is this an opportunity for savings?

Steve Levy: There is no question that there is a need for consolidation on Long Island. Two years ago, I brought together the ten town supervisors to discuss ways in which we could better coordinate and consolidate our various functions. For instance, we will pay some towns for paving our roads. We have also offered the opportunity for the sharing of equipment among our levels of government, so as to avoid unnecessary purchases. 

Perhaps the most notable consolidations have been through my work with school districts. While I believe it will be unrealistic to expect the state legislature to encourage the consolidation of individual school districts, I do believe that we can experience tremendous efficiencies by consolidating functions that are germane to each of the 69 school districts throughout Suffolk. Consequently, we have been taking the lead in promoting the idea of having one firm chosen through a competitive process to provide security to all of our districts. The same can be done with transportation, maintenance, printing and even the delivery of health care for employees. There are tens of millions of dollars that can be saved through these economies of scale without having any negative impacts on the quality of education provided on Long Island.

Future Political Plans

Sentinel: What political plans do you have beyond Suffolk County? Would you consider running for governor, the U.S. House of Representatives, or the U.S. Senate?

Steve Levy: I have always believed that the official who sits around all day thinking about higher office is doing himself and his constituents a disservice. This does not mean that one should not strive to a higher post, but one cannot become obsessed about it. The most important thing to do is to perform your present job well, in which case others will start looking toward you and speaking of you in a very positive light. If you mess up with the job at hand, you won’t be taken very seriously for anything beyond that job. It is also extremely difficult to make plans in the political arena because there are so many uncontrollable variables. Just one year in politics is an eternity with so many different twists and turns that can come about. For instance, who would have thought a year ago that we would have a new governor and a new United States senator? I am nevertheless flattered by those who think that I could transfer my leadership skills effectively as either the governor or a United States senator.

Representing the Taxpayers

Sentinel: Any other tidbits of wisdom that you would like leave with us?

Steve Levy: I have found it to be an extraordinary privilege to be able to be a public servant. I have taken pride in following my conscience and doing what I believe is right. Upon taking office as a young man of 26, I became quite dismayed over seeing the enormous influence that special interests held over the process. 

Special interests had hired lobbyists, for example, to hound legislators right up to the point that votes were cast. On the other hand, I would ask, "here are the representatives for the taxpayers?"

The taxpayers themselves couldn’t be at these sessions because they were out working for a living, earning the money to pay for these crazy taxes. Weren’t we as the legislators supposed to be the advocates for the taxpayers? Unfortunately, too many of these legislators became advocates for the special interests. So, I try to tell it like it is, understanding that it may ruffle some feathers -- and if so, so be it. I believe that the people are longing for leaders who have the ability to prioritize and to make our government run in a more efficient manner, while keeping our taxes under control. My motto has been, “We must be able to say no to the things we want, so that we have the ability to say yes to the things we need. All the wonderful programs in the world are irrelevant if you aren’t able to afford to live here to enjoy them in the first place.” I will continue to follow that philosophy.

Copyright © Keating Reports