Gaughn is exactly right. Every town, village and city should cut two positions from their council. That would be one step in the right direction.
Gaughan challenges officials to downsize
Backed by his study of bloated government, Buffalo lawyer and civic activist Kevin Gaughan is launching a drive today to reduce the number of elected officials in Erie County.
Gaughan says he plans to appear before 45 town, village and city boards and councils to challenge them to downsize by eliminating two members through attrition. His first presentation is scheduled for 8 p.m. today in the Village of Lancaster.
“We need to create an economy that will sustain us and help keep young people here, but we’re utterly failing at this task. I’m trying to make a small step toward that goal,” he said.
Gaughan released a study last year on the size of local government in Erie County, consisting of 439 elected leaders and their immediate staffs in 44 villages, towns and cities. Support for that much government costs more than $32.14 million in salaries and benefits each year.
The study also concluded that the county exceeds other areas in the number of elected officials — twice as many as Indianapolis, five times more than in Charlotte, N.C., and eight times more than in the Baltimore, Md., area, he said.
Gaughan and other advocates of reform maintain that the size of government contrasts starkly with the area’s economic and demographic trends.
Erie County lost nearly a third of its young people during the past decade, posting the highest rate of decline for 25- to 34-year-olds in the nation. The economy remains weak, taxes remain high, and both the county and Buffalo, its largest city, remain under the oversight of state-mandated financial control boards.
“We’ve had to close churches, libraries and hospitals because we couldn’t afford them, yet the political community not only stays the same but continues to grow,” he said. “No one can defend the path this community is on.”
more–>
Tags: Erie County Insanity
First we must be clear what this proposition is and is not about. This proposition is not about consolidating with, or having the town annexed by, a bordering municipality. Annexation can only be initiated by citizen petition and consolidation can be initiated either by citizen petition or a resolution of the town board and this will not change whether this measure passes or fails. The proponents of this measure could have petitioned to put one or more of those questions on the ballot but did not. This vote is not about whether or not you approve of the performance of the two people who currently hold the positions that are proposed to be eliminated. Questions as to their performance or lack thereof are to be decided when they are up for election. This is a distinct and different question of whether or not these positions should exist. This vote is solely about reducing the town board from 5 to 3.
Although one can diminish the size of the town board we have no greater control over the budget and their salaries as before. We will not gain any control over whether or not the new smaller town board will increase their salaries and/or hire additional administrative staff to make up for the loss of the board members that were eliminated.
Even assuming no raises or new hires the projected savings would be minimal. As of the 2000 census, there were 45,920 people and 12,737 families residing in the town. The salary for a town board member is $22,420.00. Some proponents for downsizing in West Seneca assert that when all the benefits and taxes are combined this will result in a $60,000.00 per year savings. As it stands now the budget for 2009 calls for $11,879,802 to be raised by property taxes for the general fund only. The town has a taxable valuation of $1,131,264,449 which means a tax rate of $10.50135 per thousand of assessed value. If reduced by $60,000 it would result in a tax rate of $10.44831. Assuming we all live in $100,000 homes this would result in an annual reduction of property tax of $5.30 or $1.47 per person.
There is absolutely no correlation between the size of a town board and whether it engages in a conversation with its citizens or lectures to them. This is a function of who is in office and not whether or not that office exists. In order to effect any change in this regard it is we the people that need to determine this by voting in the representatives that will treat us the way we want to be treated.
We can effect substantive change, however in order to change we must be participants in our political process. We as citizens have not been active participants, but armchair quarterbacks criticizing the works of others while not taking part in deciding our own destinies. In order to effect change, we must change and become more active.