Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: Proposition to increase the number of councilmen

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    559
    Quote Originally Posted by truth seeker View Post
    Let's hope that if this passes, we don't get a bunch of repeats running for the open seats! We certainly don't need Bove, Graber, Hicks, Blando or others that didn't make it the last time to pop up again and try to slip back in! That would be stepping back in time and NOT accomplishing anything.
    Prediction; Blando will run.

    Anyone have an update on Dt's law degree progress?

  2. #47
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by wnyfuture View Post
    Allegedly You and Dennis are tied together
    REALLY?!?! Where did you get that one from? You do realize he also sued me in that action, correct? I ask because your history of reading comprehension is suspect.
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  3. #48
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by wnyfuture View Post
    Prediction; Blando will run.

    Anyone have an update on Dt's law degree progress?
    Do you realize that there is Town Board seat up next year regardless of the outcome of this vote?
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  4. #49
    Member Psycho1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    1,017
    The real fact is that, whether you like them or not, this Town Board is proceeding in a manner that is in the residents interest. The TB that was seated when the downsizing was proposed, wouldn't put it on the ballot for the general election. Esentially, they felt the citizens weren't intellegent enough to make that decision. It wasn't a vote to downsize, as much as it was to dump Bove and Graber. Has it been placed on the GE ballot, it wouldn't have caused half the BS that went on. Had people been able to hear facts, instead of rhetoric, the outcome may have been different, and we wouldn't be discussing this. Perhaps, with the proposal on the ballot during a Presidential election, we'll get a clearer picture of what the people really want.

    And Kevin, if you or anyone from your staff is reading this, stay in your Town. While your ideas might work in larger communities with truely over sized boards, less than five in a small Town doesn't work. It only slows the process.
    I'd rather be hated for who I am... than loved for who I'm not!

  5. #50
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    From: http://www.westseneca.net/sites/defa...1011091439.pdf

    REFERENDUM TO INCREASE TOWN BOARD TO FIVE MEMBERS

    Motion by Councilman Rusinski, seconded by Councilman Hart, to place on the November ballot the issue of returning the West Seneca Town Board to a five member board. On the question, Councilman Rusinski understood there is a credible effort to return the Town Board to five members and petitions are being circulated to call for a referendum. He wanted to address this at tonight's meeting to avoid the possibility of the town having to pay for a special election if petitions are presented next month. This motion will allow the issue to be placed on the November ballot, avoiding a costly special election.

    Town Attorney Shawn Martin stated that he is not sure if Election Law dictates that petitions have to be filed prior to a resolution. The board is free to pass this resolution but it is something that will have to be looked into.

    Ayes: All Noes: None Motion Carried
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  6. #51
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    From: http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs...121019599/1003

    Five minus two.

    To some, it’s a first-grade arithmetic question. But solving it in several recently downsized town governments equals plenty of headaches, according to a recent sampling of local supervisors and council members.

    “The amount of time wasted with a three-member board and the rules [constraining] a board of three members eclipses the monies saved,” said Steven J. Walters, Hamburg town supervisor. “There is a net loss.”

    Added West Seneca Supervisor Sheila M. Meegan: “There’s no savings involved here at this level of government … only missed opportunities.”

    On Election Day, voters in Alden and West Seneca will get a chance to add back a pair of town board members thanks, respectively, to ballot propositions initiated by a citizen petition drive and a town board resolution.
    Gaughan insisted elected officials must “work harder, do more with less and adapt” as well as charging “voluntary citizens committees” to help with the town’s work.

    “Citizens, in particular senior citizens, are very eager to contribute to their community and their government,” Gaughan said.

    It’s not that easy, according to Walters, however, who said that Hamburg has tried the idea. “We have 19 voluntary committee boards to assist the town,” Walters said. “Probably about 40 percent of the seats are vacant.”

    Hamburg officials have advertised in an attempt to fill the seats to no avail.

    “There were a couple of boards that are basically defunct because they’re not volunteering,” Walters said.

    For instance, Hamburg’s town parks board was set up in 2010 “in anticipation of the downsizing,” explained Walters. “In two years, we had not one single volunteer. So, we took it off the books.”
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  7. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    12
    There are several small towns that still have 5man boards. It seems to me that those smaller towns should have been on Gaughns hit list as opposed to the 25-60K resident towns where the 3man board doesnt appear to be working. Try it on the smaller towns first, but then again Gaughn probably wouldnt have gotten so much PR from his attacks. I hope West Seneca succeeds!

  8. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    195
    I think West Seneca will succeed, but I will say it again - I hope the same people who ran before, do not run again. Do they have such big egos that they think people are so stupid that they will forget about their pasts and vote them back in? Graber thought so, because he looked for the Democratic endorsement last time! Bove probably feels the same way, that she is a shoe-in. But please, people of West Seneca, lets get some NEW blood in those seats and move forward instead of backwards. West Seneca can be a great town but only if we have council members who have new ideas and want the town to become a forward moving town.

  9. #54
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    14
    For those of you who think that by voting to increase the board back to 5 people, that you will get better qualified people, you are nuts or rather not thinking logically. All of you have been reading this political blog and following politics long enough to realize that the only thing you will be doing is allowing the same people who have enough guts and like the fame and money/benefits enough to run for office….Bove, Blando, Graber, Clarke. There are some really smart people in our town to fill this position, however, they are also smart enough to know that they are not “Politically” connected enough to win so they will never run….boy what a shame for our town.

    The only thing you will be doing is increasing our salary expenses by increasing our politicians, their pensions and having more friends and family getting patronage jobs ….all on our tax dollar.

    What we need are 3 people who are willing to be creative to find solutions to our towns problems and be willing to stand on what is right versus making their supporters happy. Increasing the numbers is just going to increase our political problems. Just look at what recently happened….we “the residents of West Seneca” voted to downsize by a large amount, yet since the people in power don’t like it, so they get to put it back up for a vote…..even after they couldn’t get enough people to sign a petition to do it???? Are they really working for us???

    I don’t need any more of “them”. I’m voting NO!!!

  10. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6

    Don't worry.............

    For those who think that WS residents will overturn and win by voting yes are mistaken.
    Only 60-62% of the voters will turn out for this election. The vote the last time wasn't
    even close. DT couldn't get enough signature to put the referendum on the ballot, so he
    met with his fairy-god mother(SM) to have this Board put the referendum on the ballot in the disguise of saving the taxpayers money. Funny they didn't care the last time where they spent
    thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. I would advise, DT that we as taxpayers, could have fought this illegal procedure but we thought better. For those that didn't know, you should
    contact Jackie Felser and ask how many people were at the meeting? Where was the posting
    of the date and time of the meeting and let her show you on the computer the date stamp
    of both, I think you'll be surprised. What time was the meeting held? 2:30? or when Gene
    Hart appeared at 4PM? I think if everyone on the Board, Mr. Martin, Mrs Felser were to testify
    under oath you would find a whole different story. But than again, I'm only a taxpayer in town.
    The Board will continue to hide under the disguise of "the taxpayers want this". Well, keep
    believing that and the next story is that the town employees will give up free health care. Ha, Ha.

    If by some chance the proposition passes, I can guarantee you, Dan McParland/SM don't have enough votes to back any candidates. Trust me I know for sure. Our group has control of the
    votes. Candidates that are connected to any of these politicians will not get enough votes
    for an endorsement. Don't forget to vote NO on Election Day.

  11. #56
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy Lou View Post
    For those who think that WS residents will overturn and win by voting yes are mistaken.
    Only 60-62% of the voters will turn out for this election. The vote the last time wasn't
    even close.
    The turnout for the June 3, 2009 vote was only about 30%. If you are so confident in the result then why are you so concerned that the question is being asked?

    DT couldn't get enough signature to put the referendum on the ballot, so he
    met with his fairy-god mother(SM) to have this Board put the referendum on the ballot in the disguise of saving the taxpayers money. Funny they didn't care the last time where they spent
    thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. I would advise, DT that we as taxpayers, could have fought this illegal procedure but we thought better. For those that didn't know, you should
    contact Jackie Felser and ask how many people were at the meeting? Where was the posting
    of the date and time of the meeting and let her show you on the computer the date stamp
    of both, I think you'll be surprised. What time was the meeting held? 2:30? or when Gene
    Hart appeared at 4PM? I think if everyone on the Board, Mr. Martin, Mrs Felser were to testify
    under oath you would find a whole different story. But than again, I'm only a taxpayer in town.
    The Board will continue to hide under the disguise of "the taxpayers want this". Well, keep
    believing that and the next story is that the town employees will give up free health care. Ha, Ha.

    If by some chance the proposition passes, I can guarantee you, Dan McParland/SM don't have enough votes to back any candidates. Trust me I know for sure. Our group has control of the
    votes. Candidates that are connected to any of these politicians will not get enough votes
    for an endorsement. Don't forget to vote NO on Election Day.
    I did not meet with anyone over my request. I just sent the e-mail as I have posted here. The difference between my request and Mr. Gaughan's request to Mr. Piotrowski back in July 2008 is that we had a sufficient number of signatures to show a credible effort in getting it placed on the ballot.

    I do not believe that any challange to this would be successful because the decision to place this issue on the ballot was made at the September 24, 2012 Town Board meeting ( http://www.westseneca.net/index.php?q=node/744 ) not at the September 28, 2012 meeting that you are asserting to have been in non-compliance. At best any challenge would result in a declaration that the TB was in non-compliance but would not result in invalidation of the ballot proposition.

    It should be noted that there will be at least one Town Board position up to be filled next year regardless of whether this proposition passes or fails. Who runs for this or any other seat is irrelevant to whether the seat should exist.

    Again why are you trying hard to change the question? Show me the savings in the budgets that this downsizing produced, don't complain that the TB placed it on the ballot or how it got there. The fact that you want to discuss everything but that demonstrates that even you do not contend that it did save any money.
    Last edited by dtwarren; October 28th, 2012 at 07:07 PM.
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  12. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    6

    you don't get it...................

    If we wanted to waste money we would have challenged this in court. The Town Board violated the open meetings law. DT you should be more concerned about Meegans Budget stating that
    the taxes are going up around 3.5%. We continue to give away the house and most of her people are getting a raise in her budget. She says that there is too much work for three people, well, if the Board
    stopped Micro Managing, they would get alot more work done. If they can't do the job, RESIGN. Plain and simple. You want the savings, 2 added councilman, roughly $44600 per year, lifetime healthcare benefits $30,000 per
    year for 2 and retirement benefits for two. We are paying for 32 former Town Board members in West Seneca and the numbers keep growing. Keep adding up the numbers and we all will be broke. West Seneca council
    members are the second highest paid political officials in Erie County. Where does Meegan think the money will come from every year? I'm really tired of these politicians having there hands in my pocket. But again
    this is West Seneca where the majority of taxpayers just sit back and accept what the politicians put up our butts. I guess if I was working for the government, I wouldn't worry about taxes either, right DT.

    Finally, DT how is the Law Degree coming along ? Please keep this blog updated on your progress. I know alot of us would love to hear what courses your taking, maybe a couple of wanna-be lawyers can guide you.
    Keep up the studies.

  13. #58
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    Talk about everything but the topic at hand. Where is the savings in the budgets for 2010 and 2011 from the downsizing? Quantify the savings Lazy Lou.

    BTW didn't you try to work for the government by running for some office, but lost?
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  14. #59
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    From: http://www.thesunnews.net/editorial/...y_5,_2012.html

    Kevin Gaughan’s recent revisit to his sustained justification for downsizing political units again downgrades the representative role of legislative units. His energy is directed toward hoped for financial benefits anticipated with fewer active government jurisdictions and officials. His documentation draws its rationale from the concentration and layers of taxing jurisdictions which inflate local property taxes.

    Downsizing of officials tends to facilitate a management model, where a limited number of elected officials inflate a responsibility for implementing established goals, coordinating personnel, and evaluating results. The role representation plays in linking results to continuous input and evaluation of the voters at large is minimized. Mr. Gaughan’s response to the latter, given in his early presentations, has been that voter attendance at legislative sessions would address this need, mandating the agendas and positions endorsed by the elected officials following open town meetings. He anticipates sustained commitment and participation of citizens at large.

    The experience we have had with the current Town Council highlights the vacuum resulting from limited, inconsistent input from the wider community, with lessened accountability evident in the processes at play. Legislative decision-making demands the enrichment of multiple views, the increased insight generated through consistent interaction, the accountability surfacing from the transparency facilitated by the process. What we have since downsizing the Town Council has been a concentration and dominance of views in the voices of a majority of two. Open, expanded, in depth, insightful discussions are limited, often void and dysfunctional. We lose the dynamics of an evolving synergy. Town Meetings do not ensure a range of views, focused interaction, continuity.

    When I presented this rationale during one of Mr. Gaughan’s town meetings prior to the 2009 vote, he stated that my experience, compared with his own study conducted in 2008, was irrelevant. This, after I had noted my twenty-two years as a university professor of political science, my retirement as a quality management consultant with ten years experience facilitating group process and training fellow facilitators.

    Were Mr. Gaughan elected to the State Assembly his views on legislative representation will evolve. He will experience processes in consensus building, enhanced when voices other than his are at play, welcoming the enriched discussions possible with expanded input. This is, after all, the priority function of any elected representative group. I not only endorse returning the Town Council to its earlier size, but could favor an expansion, perhaps establishing individual districts.

    Harold Johnson
    Hamburg
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

  15. #60
    Member dtwarren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    West Seneca, New York, United States
    Posts
    4,636
    From: http://www.thesunnews.net/editorial/...n_to_five.html

    Throughout the month of April, there have been a number of times when resolutions by the Hamburg Town Board have been approved by a 2-0 count. Councilman Joseph Collins missed the April 9 meeting because he was out of town for Easter, and during an emergency meeting of the board on April 26, abstained from a vote on matching grant funding for a energy related initiative for the town.

    We certainly are not saying that Town Supervisor Steven Walters or Councilwoman Amy Ziegler were wrong to vote in favor of this item. In the grand scheme of things, it was really more of a formality to see that the project started on time.

    But in the big picture, two people’s “yes” votes represented a town that has approximately 57,000 people living inside of its borders.

    The Town of Evans also is a three-person board, and in a community where waterfront development is a key element in its future growth, is three members enough?

    This is not an indictment on members of either board, but under the current state of three-person boards, it makes government nearly impossible to function.

    Some of the problems are within the numbers. With only three people, it means that two people present is a quorum – or in other words, a majority of the board.

    If two board members e-mail each other or talk about town issues if they are at a restaurant having a cup of coffee, that puts those members in danger of violating the open meetings law.

    When activist Kevin Gaughan touted the idea of reducing the size of boards and shrinking government a few years ago, one of the premises of the movement was that it was going to save taxpayers money.

    In 2011, the Hamburg Town Board opted not to add a fifth member when Kevin Smardz was voted to the State Assembly, knowing the board would reduce to three in 2012. At the end of 2011, Jon Gorman’s seat was also eliminated.

    Factor in that Hamburg is operating on a nearly $40 million budget. Then factor in how much is saved per household for the reduction of two part-time salaries for town council and possible benefits. It may add up to a savings that is so small to taxpayers, that they may not be able to purchase one movie ticket.

    The result is that towns of significant size have a few voices making the decisions for many. It is too much power for too few people.

    We hope a movement begins that will push for boards currently at three members to get a referendum in place that could increase board sizes back to five. That is a reasonable number of people.

    In difficult economic times, boards need a couple more voices to present ideas or to serve as taxpayer watchdogs.

    Another premise of Gaughan’s ideal was that of roundtable discussions, more input from the community and an increase in volunteerism. The basic ideals are all well and good, but the reality is that a smaller number of people volunteer these days. This also is not an indictment on people. In some cases, people may have to get a second job to make ends meet.

    Volunteers are not coming out of the woodwork to help offset what the fourth and fifth people of these boards did and community input still comes during the same portion of the agenda it always has.

    Now that the romantic portion of the ideal is over, it is time to take a look at the reality of the impact it is having on these communities.

    Evans and Hamburg residents should ask themselves if they are happy with the directions of their town government? Is three people enough?

    Just because you initially thought so, does not mean you cannot change your mind. The 2009 decision to reduce can be changed. That is the true power of the people.

    We hope you take time to consider the options and if you think these boards should remain at three.
    “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Republican endorsements for supervisor and councilmen
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: June 1st, 2011, 07:22 AM
  2. Councilmen raises
    By gorja in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: October 21st, 2010, 09:12 AM
  3. Jerry the Councilmen to be.
    By Jerry In Lancaster in forum Village of Lancaster and Town of Lancaster Politics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2009, 06:57 PM
  4. Councilmen Hicks and Osmanski - In the Hot Seat
    By count alucard in forum West Seneca Politics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: November 3rd, 2007, 07:51 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 30th, 2006, 03:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •