Town of Amherst Town Code that deals with gratuities - Dan makes a valid point

Quote:

---

This is the operative portion of the Town of Amherst Town Code that deals with gratuities and elected officials. When I last served on the Town Board I was able to get the level to $0 - or zero tolerance. When I was Supervisor our policy was to prohibit any form of gift or gratuity, but for those that slipped through , the rule was if it was edible, it went to the senior citizen center; if not, it went to the museum. Its time to get that zero tolerance , zero dollar figure back. More significantly , its time to face the reality - as Councilmember Margaret "Peggy" Santillo once proposed - and start the prohibition of developer and special interest campaign contributions - with real and meaningful penalties- as they are de facto gratuities , and the public sees them as poorly camouflaged bribes. Lets change this law.

---

https://www.facebook.com/dan.ward.96343?fref=nf




https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphoto...0a&oe=55ECB9D0

Lancaster should have done this as well - but then the Politicians would be beholding only to taxpayers - cant have that happen !

I don't see why us property/business owners can not address this topic to all the local town boards at once. This would only benefit us. There is no advantage to us property/business owners to allow local officials to accept bribes or as some put it "gratuities" while working for us.

I guess under sec 19-4(c) it's illegal for unions to negotiate a raise for themselves because they're asking town officials to give them a benefit. I invite all of you who are taxpayers in Amherst to be in court first thing Monday to commence a court action to set aside all union contracts. Let me know which court room you're in so that I can come down and watch. It should be comical. The funny part about this is that Ward routinely took contributions from unions who did business with the town.

Let's see now...there must be something we are forgetting...what could it be?..If we unite as citizens we might be able to remember what it was...

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

The 5-to-4 decision was a vindication, the majority said, of the First Amendment’s most basic free speech principle — that the government has no business regulating political speech.

---

Justices, 5-4, Reject Corporate Spending Limit

Can't we just ignore that pesky Bill of rights?

Oh...and let's not forget that elected officials do not work for property and business owners. They work for the voters, and those voters may or may not own property, and may or may not own businesses. While most union members are voters, many property and business owners are not. I'll bet none of the top 10 property and business owners in any town are voters in those towns.

companies are not people

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nogods

Oh...and let's not forget that elected officials do not work for property and business owners. They work for the voters, and those voters may or may not own property, and may or may not own businesses. While most union members are voters, many property and business owners are not. I'll bet none of the top 10 property and business owners in any town are voters in those towns.

---

Let's not forget if you control the elected seats you can vote away what mistakes past elected officials have done. Right nogods? The winners do what they want and the losers can whine about it.

SO with that said if a group of people controlled the elected positions we can change how our services are provided and what those services cost us property/business owners. Correct? If they are not service monopolies then the winners can do as they please. IF there are any laws that were voted into existence to create these monopolies we can just vote them away. That is how it works right nogods?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WNYresident

Let's not forget if you control the elected seats you can vote away what mistakes past elected officials have done. Right nogods? The winners do what they want and the losers can whine about it.

SO with that said if a group of people controlled the elected positions we can change how our services are provided and what those services cost us property/business owners. Correct? If they are not service monopolies then the winners can do as they please. IF there are any laws that were voted into existence to create these monopolies we can just vote them away. That is how it works right nogods?

---

You can control the elected seats through...an election....in which only registered voters can vote...not "property/business owners"

Now, it is true that non-voters can spend their money in an election as they see fit, in an attempt to influence who votes and who those voters vote for. but being a property/business owner by itself does not qualify one to vote, and voters are free to take the free hot dogs from the property/business owner trying to get them to vote for Tom, then turn around and vote for Sally instead.

But the larger point is that under current law the town can't prohibit unions or developers or computer business owners from contributing to campaigns of candidates. Being a property/business owner does not make one any more special than a developer or a union.

Would it surprise anyone at all to learn that town of Amherst ethics code was enacted while Dan Ward was supervisor in Amherst, that he voted for the law and that it exempted campaign contributions when it was enacted. Dan Ward always talked a good game as long as he was talking about something that didn't impact him.