Downsizing the Town Board-Process?

[Add It Up]

While some may consider downsizing the town board a necessity, the way in which it is being forced upon the people of Amherst should open some eyes.

Bucki was voted into a position on the town board by the people of Amherst. Since she has been elected to the Town Clerk position, her seat on the TB will be vacated at end of this year-leaving a TB vacancy for the remainder of her term.

The audacity of the vote last TB meeting not to fill this position leaving a 6 member town board should show the public that members Weinstein, Marlette, Schratz and Manna do not see representation of the public as important. They have no right to deny the people of Amherst their right to representation! Please note this was done with no public hearing on a night when the meeting was not taped for the general public to see.

IMO- downsizing the board will only afford us less representation. This was a calculated political move (which if legal, definitely wasn't ethical) to deny the public representation which it voted for in a legal election.

[hate politics]

are you saying you want a 7-person board? c'mon - over 90% of the amherst residents want a 5 person board. and what public are you referring to? Adding another person who just add more costs to an already bloated board.

while I agree the mechanism in which they made the decision was atypical - it is the right thing to do and hopefully it should go to 5 via public referendum next fall.

[WNYresident]

Over all does it actually save any money. It's peanuts compared to where the cost are generated.

[hate politics]

are you kidding?

you are not talking just about the salary - you are talking about full pension benefits, health, other expenses such as office equipment, office space, staff to assist hi/her, etc. what a waste of money and for what? bucki added nothing - none of them do.

it is a no-brainer that the amherst town board should be five. six is doable for the time being.

lets hope this translates into some real change. but lets not take a step back here people.

[left wing]

are you kidding?

you are not talking just about the salary - you are talking about full pension benefits, health, other expenses such as office equipment, office space, staff to assist hi/her, etc. what a waste of money and for what? bucki added nothing - none of them do.

it is a no-brainer that the amherst town board should be five. six is doable for the time being.

lets hope this translates into some real change. but lets not take a step back here people.

I am in complete agreement that the Town Board should be downsized. However, councilmembers do not get medical benefits. I do not believe they get pensions unless they serve for at least 10 years. They have NO office equipment - it is a joke that they do not have computers. Their office space is a tiny cubicle. And it probably will not reduce the support staff to cut 2 council positions.

That said, we should cut to 5.

[hate politics]

while they may not be getting full medical, they are part of the New York State Retirement System as full-time employees from day one - the dumbest thing in the world I know (that I know for sure). So the full cost of keeping that position around is far more than just the salary. that was my point.

[Add It Up]

I am speaking about a vacancy for an elected term (the people spoke 3 years ago to put someone in that seat) - which is being eliminated by only 4 members of a board. If the board is to be downsized, it should be done after public hearing and/or referendum, fairly.

The Amherst board is overly political for what it represents. This move was for certain individuals to control the process for their benefit, not the voters' benefit. This vacancy should be filled because we voted to fill it 3 years ago. If 2 seats are to be eliminated, it needs to be done fairly according to a process which is known to everyone and not to control the make up of the board.

[Add It Up]

while they may not be getting full medical, they are part of the New York State Retirement System as full-time employees from day one - the dumbest thing in the world I know (that I know for sure). So the full cost of keeping that position around is far more than just the salary. that was my point.

The NYS Retirement System? Please, working for 1 year will not get them much. I'm not even sure they would qualify for the states' contribution.

[dtwarren]

I am speaking about a vacancy for an elected term (the people spoke 3 years ago to put someone in that seat) - which is being eliminated by only 4 members of a board. If the board is to be downsized, it should be done after public hearing and/or referendum, fairly.

The Amherst board is overly political for what it represents. This move was for certain individuals to control the process for their benefit, not the voters' benefit. This vacancy should be filled because we voted to fill it 3 years ago. If 2 seats are to be eliminated, it needs to be done fairly according to a process which is known to everyone and not to control the make up of the board.

Unfortunately the filling of this vacancy is discretionary in the current board. However, at the next Biennial Town Election the Town Clerk must certify the vacancies to be filled which I believe would include this one. Therefore there would be nominal savinfs for this temporary downsizing.

[forreason]

Some friends of ours are in that retirement system. They have told me that you qualify after 5 yrs in a full time postion at less than 1.6%/yr of service (of your salary). That being said, our TB passed a resolution I believe two yrs ago of a two term cap (total of eight yrs). But the question remains that someone like DW that has held both county & town positions, probably has a nice package (including health insurance upon retirement). And he complains about others?

[Add It Up]

Can anyone tell me what downsizing the board to 5 members is truly supposed to achieve? Mr. Gaughan's presentation doesn't really show any benefits other than a decrease in the salaries for 2 board members. In his study he implies that this money could be used for any number of improvements to Buffalo, but I don't understand how downsizing the Amherst Town Board will achieve that and the tax savings per individual household would be minimal. Dr. Weinstein hasn't enlightened me either. I would think it would be a straight forward review of the benefits, but I haven't heard any yet.

At the same time, the public would lose 2 of its representatives, making the board more unilateral. I guess this is ok if you agree with the views of the members who are left, but many don't.

Seems more like a political move to centralize power than anything else.

[Trajan]

Can anyone tell me what downsizing the board to 5 members is truly supposed to achieve? Mr. Gaughan's presentation doesn't really show any benefits other than a decrease in the salaries for 2 board members. In his study he implies that this money could be used for any number of improvements to Buffalo, but I don't understand how downsizing the Amherst Town Board will achieve that and the tax savings per individual household would be minimal. Dr. Weinstein hasn't enlightened me either. I would think it would be a straight forward review of the benefits, but I haven't heard any yet.

At the same time, the public would lose 2 of its representatives, making the board more unilateral. I guess this is ok if you agree with the views of the members who are left, but many don't.

Seems more like a political move to centralize power than anything else.

Well-said. Mr. Gaughan's and some TB members' arguments are specious, at best.
The whole dialogue looks suspiciously like a power grab.

Weinstein's stint on the Legislature was a disaster. He should not be allowed to impose any of his self-serving, ridiculous ideas on the Town. They will, most
assuredly, end in disaster too.

[Trajan]

while some may consider downsizing the town board a necessity, the way in which it is being forced upon the people of amherst should open some eyes.

Bucki was voted into a position on the town board by the people of amherst. Since she has been elected to the town clerk position, her seat on the tb will be vacated at end of this year-leaving a tb vacancy for the remainder of her term.

The audacity of the vote last tb meeting not to fill this position leaving a 6 member town board should show the public that members weinstein, marlette, schratz and manna do not see representation of the public as important. they have no right to deny the people of amherst their right to representation! please note this was done with no public hearing on a night when the meeting was not taped for the general public to see.

Imo- downsizing the board will only afford us less representation. This was a calculated political move (which if legal, definitely wasn't ethical) to deny the public representation which it voted for in a legal election.

This needs repeating!!

[Add It Up]

Please read Weinstein's resolutions for the TB meeting Monday Dec. 15th.

Follow the links for Town Board agenda on the town's website:
www.amherst.ny.us

These shameless power grabs have to stop.

[cheekman]

that is how politicans work sneak it through when nobody is looking. politicians have three order of business 1) think of themselves 2) some close peole that support them 3) then the people they represent.