Zachary Meseck. Did you know that Chenango County’s weighted-voting system was adopted after a priest sued the Board of Supervisors in 1968? (ES file photo)

Did you know that Chenango County’s weighted-voting system was adopted after a priest sued the Board of Supervisors in 1968? Or that in 1969, the board voted, almost unanimously, to study the merits and ramifications of a different kind of government?

After a few late nights and a couple dozen hours of reading, writing, and digitally digging through this paper’s archives, I discovered several interesting facts about our county’s history.

But before we dive in, I want to take a moment to applaud 1960s-era Evening Sun Reporter Casey Jones, whose dedication to this community made my research possible. Cheers to you, Casey. This story of politics and power will forever be painted in the ink of your articles.

Without further delay, here’s my best attempt to honor Jones’ reporting, build on that work, and combine it with my experience as a supervisor to revive the unrealized vision of leaders from our county’s past.

A Brief History of a Chaotic Time

Chenango County was founded in 1798, and according to the Chenango County Historical Society, the county’s name originates from an Oneida Native American word meaning large bullthistle.

Since Chenango County’s inception, it has been governed by a Board of Supervisors.

Our Board of Supervisors is a legislative body that is composed of 23 elected representatives, one from each town within Chenango County and two from the City of Norwich. The Board passes legislation through resolutions drafted in committees or proposed by supervisors during a full board session.

For more than 170 years, our county supervisors held equal voting power. That ended in the 1960s, when state and federal courts established that representation in county government had to reflect each municipality’s population.

Most counties in New York State responded to the court rulings in one of two ways: by replacing their boards of supervisors with district-based county legislatures or by retaining their boards through weighted voting.

In 1968, the Chenango County Board of Supervisors was exploring its options, but continued to vote with the one-town, one-vote system in place. That’s when Rev. Wayne D. Pokorny, of Norwich’s Emmanuel Episcopal Church, sued the Board.

Pokorny argued that the Board’s continued one-town, one-vote structure was unconstitutional because it did not provide residents with equal representation. His lawsuit was heard in the New York State Supreme Court, and under the court’s guidance, the Board adopted a temporary weighted voting system that December.

At its January 1969 meeting, the Board voted overwhelmingly, 955–44, in support of a motion made by Town of Greene Supervisor Paul English. The motion was to pursue the creation of a commission to study charter government.

Under New York law, a county charter is a voter-approved framework that establishes the structure of county government and can reassign executive and administrative responsibilities.

Creating the commission would have begun an exploratory process. The commission could have studied possible changes and drafted a proposal for voters to consider. However, one month later, several supervisors changed their minds.

Supporters of halting the commission said they had misunderstood what they originally approved and wanted to hear from a state official before acting.

English continued to advocate for the commission. He suggested that looking at a charter system was not intended as an insult to the chairman or board. He asked that the commission continue and said, “I feel we owe it to the public to do this.” Against English’s wishes, the vote to end the commission study passed 513–486, a margin of just 27 out of 999 possible weighted votes.

Some of those favoring a halt portrayed it as a temporary delay, arguing that the Board should first hear from a state representative.

On March 10, 1969, Richard Atkins of the State Office of Local Government met with the Board. He said that, at the time, 70% of the state’s population lived in charter-governed counties. Atkins added that citizen charter commissions tended to produce proposals voters were more likely to approve.

A week later, the Board voted 504–359 to table further action regarding the commission. Three supervisors who were previously in favor of the commission were absent for the vote, but their weighted votes alone weren’t enough to change the outcome. This was the last time I saw a reference to a commission vote in the records I reviewed.

Ultimately, the Board moved forward with its revised weighted-voting system in the spring of 1969, with promises that the system would be revisited following the next census. The system was adjusted based on census data a few years later, but discussions on a charter quietly became a notion of the past.

The Modern-Day Voting System

In 2026, our representatives on the Board of Supervisors wield vastly different voting power.

At the top, supervisors representing the Towns of Greene, Sherburne, Norwich, and Oxford currently hold 34.2% of the total vote. The City of Norwich has its power split between two districts, with a combined total of 14.9% of the vote. Together, these six representatives hold approximately 49% of the vote. On the other side of the voting-power scale, German and Lincklaen each hold less than 1% of the vote.

While the populations of each town are proportionally represented in the Board of Supervisors system, this difference in voting power inherently makes some towns’ votes more consequential than others.

That said, supervisors are granted equal voting rights in their committees, but all resolutions must eventually make their way to the full board for a weighted vote. All towns are represented in the board of supervisors system, so at the very least, small-town representatives are able to advocate for their towns directly.

According to the New York State Department of State, all counties that have adopted a charter have chosen to replace their boards with district-based legislatures. In district-based legislatures, smaller towns are typically grouped together; that can make it more difficult for smaller-town issues to be represented on the county level.

The County’s “Unwritten Agreement”

In the July 3, 1968 article, “County Panel to Recommend Computer-Weighted Voting,” Jones referenced an “unwritten agreement” within many smaller towns. He wrote: “In many cases, in smaller towns, they indicated, there is an ‘unwritten agreement’ that a supervisor’s primary monetary reimbursement is from the county.”

Decades later, at least in Preston, that same pattern remained. During my final year in office in 2025, Preston paid me $2,500.08 to run the town, while Chenango County paid me $16,388.40 to serve on the Board of Supervisors.

Another interesting financial tension surfaced during the November 2024 budget debate. As the county prepared to exceed the tax cap, Supervisor Robert Jeffrey moved to eliminate the Board’s proposed 4% pay increase. I seconded the amendment, which passed by a weighted vote of 1,220-507.

At the time, I saw that vote as evidence that our board was willing to act fairly and lead by example. But it also made me think back to an earlier meeting, before the budget hearing, when I had raised the same idea.

The following is the record from the county’s minutes:

“Mr. Meseck stated if we are talking about exceeding the tax cap and we have factored in pay increase for ourselves, shouldn’t that be one of the first places we look to cut.

Mr. Blanchard stated basically my feeling is that we should keep Supervisor raises tied to the compensation schedule to keep political maneuvering out of that.

Mr. Blanchard stated otherwise you don’t have an increase for several years and then suddenly you have a large increase.

Mr. Meseck stated hypothetically if we all agreed there wouldn’t be any political issues.

Mr. Blanchard stated that is kind of strong-arming your peers into doing that.”

A few other supervisors spoke on the issue, but no action was taken.

To the chairman's credit, he was opposed to the idea in that meeting and at the budget hearing.

However, I believe there is a difference between political strong-arming and leadership, and maybe if I had the courage to ask for an amendment, as Supervisor Jeffrey did later that year, the outcome would have surprised me. But the contrast is hard to ignore. I raised the idea in a quiet room, and nothing happened. Later that fall, with the public filling the seats and asking how we could do something that seemed wrong, the raise was removed.

Now as I look back at my own time on the board, alongside the history captured by Casey Jones, I can’t help but wonder if the “unwritten agreement” is part of the reason this system has endured.

Either way, none of this proves that compensation drove the decisions made in 1969, but it does show that the current structure creates financial and political incentives worthy of public examination.

A Final Thought

In 1969, Greene Supervisor Paul English argued that Chenango County owed its residents an impartial examination of charter government. He described the board of supervisors as a “headless form of government,” but not as an insult to the people he served with. It was a critique of a system without a publicly elected head of government, and that form of government still exists today.

While Mr. English is the individual I’ve quoted from the charter study movement, he was not alone in his efforts. Eight of his colleagues opposed the February vote to halt the charter study. One of my own civic predecessors, Preston Supervisor Daniel Downey, was also among those who supported a commission.

Since then, more than half a century has passed.

Mr. English is no longer with us, but his idea lives on: the Board of Supervisors owes its residents a fair look at charter government.

To my friends who remain on the board, I’m sorry I can’t make this resolution myself. I’m counting on you to give this proposal the fair hearing it was denied in 1969.

If you are unsuccessful, then Chenango County residents could petition to put the creation of a charter commission to the voters, and they can lead the way.