Resident seeks support to ‘upsize’ Town Board
by KIMBERLY MCDOWELL
Editor
It’s been two years since a downsized, three-member town board made its debut in West Seneca, and some residents are now looking to reverse their decision.
(See editorial on page four)
Daniel T. Warren, of Indian Church Road, has been against the idea of downsizing local government — at least in the Town of West Seneca — from the start.
That’s why he’s currently in the process of collecting signatures for a petition that could lead to another public referendum. This time, Warren seeks residential support to increase the number of council members from two to four, ultimately going back to a five-member board, which also includes the town supervisor.
He said there were major misconceptions on what the effects would be after reducing the number of council members by two.
“There was a lot of confusion and misinformation the first time people voted,” said Warren, noting that he, at the time, heard rumors that residents would save $300 annually in taxes by voting to downsize their local government. That never happened.
“I think people just jumped to certain conclusions that nobody ever said,” he added.
The notion of “downsizing” was introduced four years ago when attorney Kevin Gaughan of Hamburg, a self-proclaimed “civic leader,” rallied citizens together in Erie County’s 25 towns, 16 villages and three cities, asking each to eliminate two elected officials.
At that time, Gaughan told The Bee that he selected West Seneca as the first municipality in which to test the petition process because it was the “quintessential Erie County town.”
He collected more than 1,500 signatures from West Seneca residents in March 2009 to call for a public referendum — only 810 were apparently needed. New York State Town Law requires a petition with 5 percent of those who participated in the most recent governor’s election to put a proposition before voters.
Those signatures had to be filed with the town clerk, then validated by the Erie County Board of Elections before the Town Board could set a vote date.
Gaughan went through a similar process the prior fall after collecting more than 4,300 signatures, which Warren contested, saying the language used to describe the downsizing process on the original petition was “needlessly verbose,” or misleading.
The Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court agreed.
So Gaughan recollected signatures — this time, only 1,500 — and resubmitted a simplified petition without the “legalese” he was accused of initially including. Then, the board voted to hold the special election June 3, 2009.
More than 6,000 residents voted in favor of downsizing, with voter turnout around 35 percent. Only a simple majority was needed. The two council seats that were set to expire at the end of the year were eliminated, and a three-member Town Board debuted in 2010.
“I think a lot of people voted out of a sense of frustration and anger,” said Warren, saying that residents were desperate for change after years of alleged political corruption. “But this was not a result of logical thinking.”
In order to “upsize,” Warren is subject to going through the same process Gaughan used to downsize. The 5 percent of those who participated in the most recent governor’s election translates to needing 906 signatures in order to put the proposition before voters. His goal is to collect 1,000.
As of Wednesday morning, he had roughly 120 signatures.
“It’s still early,” said Warren. “Because we have so many people going out and collecting [signatures], we’re just starting to get them back now.”
With wanting to include the referendum on the same ballot as this year’s general election on Nov. 6 — it’s a presidential election year, which Warren said would draw out more voters — the latest date he can submit his petition to the town clerk is by Sept. 7. From there, the Town Board has between 60 and 75 days to schedule a vote date.
While residents may have been under the assumption that downsizing was in their best interest, the disadvantages of having only three members on a board have been plentiful, Warren said.
“Residents voted to get two unpopular people out,” he said, referring to former council members Christina W. Bove and Vincent
J. Graber. “They (the residents) succeeded, but look at the long-term damage they did.”
The biggest concern, in his opinion, is the inability for board members to communicate. Members cannot discuss matters related to the town amongst themselves since two members make up the majority and the majority cannot meet without calling a public meeting; otherwise, they violate the Open Meetings Law.
“There’s a lot of work to do, and I don’t think there’s enough people to do it,” he said.
Any monetary savings that downsizing created for the town was minute, Warren added. He estimated both salaries of the eliminated council seats to total approximately $80,000.
“You can’t go after savings with a hatchet; you need to approach things more with a scalpel,” he said. “[The town] probably lost more than what was saved.”
Anyone that is interested in signing a petition but has not yet done so may contact Warren at
d.warren@roadrunner.com.
Also, a link to download the petition has been posted on The West Seneca Bee’s website,
www.WestSenecaBee.com.
Do you have a comment on the possibility of ‘upsizing’ the Town Board back to five members? Send a letter to the editor to
kmcdowell@beenews.com. Also, take our online poll at
www.WestSenecaBee.com