Golisano supports downsizing the WSTB

[Lucky Larry]

This will pass in November, what you fall to realize is that I went
to voters who voted in the last three elections.

If you would like to sign a petition, send me a private message with your
address and a convienent time and I will stop by and have you sign.

[Lucky Larry]

Kevin Gaughn and 35 of his closest friends met this evening at a residence
in West Seneca along with the media to announce that the petition process
for West Seneca downsizing is complete. Wednesday afternoon, Kevin
will present the West Seneca Town Clerk 4,300 signatures to have the
referendum on the ballot for the November election.

[dtwarren]

It is no surprise that I will be opposing this measure. I find that it was deceptively presented to those who signed the petition.

See: http://www.speakupwny.com/article_3781.shtml

[Lucky Larry]

Mr Warren, do you really think it matters whether the vote on the TB
is 3-2 or 2-1. The results are the same except for the fact that we would finally get rid of the piece of crap on the TB, VG deserves to be gone.
He has done nothing other than put family members in paid positions in WS.
He's non responsive to his BOSS, the taxpayer. He talks down to his BOSS,
the taxpayer. Finally his BOSS, will have the last word, BYE VINCE!!!!!

[dtwarren]

Mr Warren, do you really think it matters whether the vote on the TB
is 3-2 or 2-1. The results are the same except for the fact that we would finally get rid of the piece of crap on the TB, VG deserves to be gone.
He has done nothing other than put family members in paid positions in WS.
He's non responsive to his BOSS, the taxpayer. He talks down to his BOSS,
the taxpayer. Finally his BOSS, will have the last word, BYE VINCE!!!!!

The remedy for your issues is to vote them out not the elimination of their seats.

[Lucky Larry]

I would rather eliminate the position held by Graber, than depend on the
voters to remove him from office. It been over 16 years and the
voters haven't figured out that he hasn't done anything except get his wife
a job with AmeriCorp and make sure his other relatives are on the WS payroll.

I've run against VG in another life to try and make a difference, the only difference is that my retirement fund is $15,000.00 lighter.

If people on this blog, want to make a difference, they should run for committeeman and take control of the democratic and republican committees
and stop people like VG from being endorsed by people that owe him for the
jobs they have. Removing Tim Clark as Democratic Chairman would be
a start, but as we all know, a few control everything in town.

[dtwarren]

But the petition said beginning January 1, 2012. Graber is up for re-election in 2009 so how is that eliminating his position? The only way it could is if the petition is worded to mislead the signors.

[Lucky Larry]

The petition was very clear, when it was handed to the voter they had the
opportunity to read the petition before they signed it. As usual, most people
don't read what they sign.

[Niagara]

It is no surprise that I will be opposing this measure. I find that it was deceptively presented to those who signed the petition.

See: http://www.speakupwny.com/article_3781.shtml

I found that the petition is deceptive and misleading in that it states that the reduction in number of councilmen will be reduced “beginning on January 1, 2012.” This is inconsistent with N.Y. Town Law § 87 which requires that if such a proposition is passed by the voters that there will be no councilmen elected at the next biennial town election (which is in 2009 where Mrs. Bove and Mr. Graber will be up for re-election) and at the biennial town election after the next one (in 2011) a councilman will be elected to a two year term and another for a four year term. Contrary to the text of the petition the downsizing will begin in 2010 not 2012.

I talked with someone who said that they all faced reelection in 2012, and he is a town worker. That is how screwed up this is.
Perhaps DT, litigation is in order to correct this misrepresentation.

[dtwarren]

The petition was very clear, when it was handed to the voter they had the
opportunity to read the petition before they signed it. As usual, most people
don't read what they sign.

It is clearly erroneous that is why I filed objections to it and will be challenging it:

Whenever a proposition shall have been adopted in a town of the first class to reduce the number of councilmen from four to two, no town councilmen shall be elected at the first biennial town election held at least one hundred fifty days after the adoption of such proposition. Party nominations for town councilmen may be made and designating petitions filed and two town councilmen shall be elected at the biennial town election next succeeding the biennial town election at which no town councilmen are elected, one for a term of two years and one for a term of four years and thereafter at each biennial town election in such town there shall be elected one town councilman for a term of four years, in the same manner as other elective town officers in such town. The term of office of each such councilman shall begin on the first day of January next succeeding the election at which he was elected.


NY CLS Town § 87

[Save Us]

So DT are you for more or less government and politicians?

[dtwarren]

I am for citizens determing their form of governance so long as they are not misled or deceived. This petition is clearly deceptive and intended to be so.

All the petition needed to say is:

I, the undersigned, do hereby state that I am a registered voter of the Town of West Seneca, County of Erie and State of New York, that my present place of residence is truly stated opposite my signature hereto, and that I do hereby request pursuant to N.Y. Town Law § 81 that the following proposition be presented to the electors of the Town of West Seneca:

Proposition 1: Shall the number of councilmen be reduced from four to two in the Town of West Seneca?

As I have previously stated there are more practical ways of reducing government and saving substantially more money without losing a representative form of government. We could eliminate the planning board, receiver of taxes and combine with nearby towns and cities.

[Save Us]

I am for citizens determing their form of governance so long as they are not misled or deceived. This petition is clearly deceptive and intended to be so.

All the petition needed to say is:



As I have previously stated there are more practical ways of reducing government and saving substantially more money without losing a representative form of government. We could eliminate the planning board, receiver of taxes and combine with nearby towns and cities.

Sound like a good effort to reduce the number of politicians in our area from the 400 or so that we have,, which by a national average is way way too many. Elimination and or reduction of the other bodies that you mentioned is also a great idea.

Too much government, and I believe that our intense representation has done little to make this area solvent or a bastion for growth or investment.
I can tell you that having the highest taxes in the nation has been a detriment to the above and has caused flight of many of our young people.

Hopefully there can be a continuing downsizing of our duplicative expensive government.

[dtwarren]

I agree with a lot of what Mr. Gaughan is proposing and government should be reduced. The flaw I see in his current approach is that in his figures he lumps all three branches of government together and at current he is targeting the branch that is the voice of the people. The elected legislative branch should be the last branch reduced because that is the voice of the citizens.

It is not the representation that is the root cause of your disatisfaction, it is the voters, who a majority of which, re-elects them thereby saying to them and every one else that their performance is acceptable.

[CSense]

As much as I'm an advocate for reducing the size of government, this will not accomplish anything except a very insignificant savings to the town of WS (which btw, will probably be consumed by another department).

West Seneca will still maintain a town board and supervisor, so what effect will reducing two members really have? As DT Warren stated, it will actually have a negative effect on quorum, public meeting law and supermajority all for $40,000 (estimate).

Now if this were a referendum to merge with another town and/or municipality, then we're talking. This is really a bogus effort to do nothing.