Reply With QuoteCorrect me if I am wrong, but was one of Mr. Wrobleski's hold out demands was a hiring freeze? If so then why did he not realize one was already passed February 28, 2005? http://www.upstate-citizens.org/res7d1.pdf ?
What do the dates 2/1/05, 2/3/05, 2/15/05 and 6/14/05 all share?
These are the dates that the EC Legislator from District 9, Tim Wroblewski decided that party politics trumped responsible, thoughtful legislative action. These are the dates that Tim voted to increase the county sales tax as a remedy for the fiscal crisis in which he had played a contributory role.
Why do I say he played a contributory role? Please take a look at the NYS Comptroller Report. The dereliction of duty that lies at the door of the imcumbent legislature is unmistakeable. Not only did the legislators approve a budget in December, that was 'structurally imbalanced' and which relied on One Shot fixes, overexuberant estimates of revenues and a completely depleted surplus fund to plug the gap (to the extent of approximately $32,000,000), these guys also made matters worse by the inartful budget cuts they approved (yes, Tim too) on February 17. When you take a look at the Hevesi Report, the deceptiveness of the alleged 1500 in job cuts is also apparent.
Now my question is, what did Tim get in exchange for his YES Vote today. We know, that back in December, the legislators who approved the 2005 Budget were rewarded for their docile complicity by having their individual member item budgets (ie, $180,000 in Pork), paid out.
We also know that Tim "took a stand" on June 7, by saying he would not vote for a sales tax increase if the "income would be appropriated by the same administration...." http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial...7/1004950.asp. I dont believe there has been a change in administration since June 7.
What exactly did the Legislator from District 9 extract for his vote? Did he at least predicate his yes vote on the condition that the other 900 jobs that were supposed to be cut from the payrolls by virtue of the Budget Cut vote on 2/17 would be implemented? (See, my post of today at 1pm: http://www.speakupwny.com/forum/show...&threadid=3860)
Somehow, I sort of doubt it.
Cindy
Correct me if I am wrong, but was one of Mr. Wrobleski's hold out demands was a hiring freeze? If so then why did he not realize one was already passed February 28, 2005? http://www.upstate-citizens.org/res7d1.pdf ?
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
DTW: a hiring freeze was Tim's ONLY demand for his vote.. sort of a meaningless gesture under the circumstances, isnt it?Originally posted by dtwarren
Correct me if I am wrong, but was one of Mr. Wrobleski's hold out demands was a hiring freeze? If so then why did he not realize one was already passed February 28, 2005? http://www.upstate-citizens.org/res7d1.pdf ?
I cant speak for what Tim may or may have not realized regarding the events of 2/28/05.
Cindy
You are mistaken about the effect of the prior "hiring freezes" and cuts of "vacant positions."
The Legislature has imposed "hiring freezes" many times to no effect because of the separation between legislative and executive authority. The legislature can create and fund the positions. The executive fills them.
What Tim W did was pass a resoltion that stated upon any position becoming vacant, it is eliminated. Consequently, in order to reinstate the position the County Executive must come to the legislature and ask that a new position be created threby putting tremendous pressure and checks on the CE to justify everything he does as far as creating positions. It also holds legislators accountalbe for the creation or continuation of any postion.
It took a freshman legislator to accomplish something very simple that no one else has done in the history of Erie County that is to create a tremendous shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
With regard to the additional vacant position that were cut, when the new resolution, i.e. eliminating postions that were vacant, went into effect, that is what "fell out." Interestingly, most of those postions were in the bugdets of the Sherrif, Comptroller, DA and County Clerk -- all of whom testified that they had no where else to cut and sued the County at taxpayer expense.
While I haven't decided who I am going to vote for monikers like "Tim's Shame" make you sound like every other politician. I would hope that you simply didn't have the facts rather than knew them and intentionally distorted them.
Hello Amtichnik,
This is what the County Legislature previously passed in February by way of a hiring freeze.
"...effective immediately, there shall be no hiring, filling of vacancies or double filling of positions without the prior formal approval of the Legislature... "
Note that it provides for a PROHIBITION against the filling of vacancies UNLESS, there is PRIOR FORMAL APPROVAL of the Legislature. This prior Legislation, in effect REQUIRES the Administration to expressly justify to the Legislature the need for filling vacancies, before the vacant position is filled.
Yes, Wroblewski's June resolution goes the additional step of deleting vacant positions from the budget, but to me, in light of the previous Resolution I see the June Wroblewski resolution as a redundant gesture (and little more than sticking a band-aid on a fatal wound..) It is a redundant gesture that is in lieu of earlier conditions Tim had placed on his "Yes" vote (ie, a change in Administration); in lieu of more drastic and effectual cost cutting conditions (getting to real layoffs of 1500 fulltime jobs; and in lieu of more intense legislative scrutiny of Administrative practices (ie, demanding administrative acountability for all the patronage created over the last 5 years).
I have to say that deleting the vacant positions may or may not result in effective and efficient goverance above and beyond the initial February hiring freeze. The Wroblewski Resolution removes the 'controlled flexibility' of the previous resolution and may put in jeopardy the seamless staffing of critical positions. Once a position is deleted, does the Legislature have to await a new budget cycle to re-instate it? IF so, what is the burden placed on departments that experience a retirement/death/attrition for a postition that is justified, needed and not earmarked for a political hire? Isnt it like throwing out the baby with the bath water?
Obviously, you and I are entitled to our respective opinions. I fail to see how any of my previous posts are a distortion of any facts. I have fairly presented my opinions of the actions the incumbent has taken. I certainly expect that people will disagree with my opinions, but I take issue with the disengenuous tactic of implying that I have employed any deceit or misrepresentation or distorted facts.
Cindy
I thought that the premise of your argument was that the June resolution was redundant.
My point was that you were factually and legally incorrect. The prior "hiring freezes" we a nullity and of no legal effect.
I would venture to guess over the years that there have been more than 10 hires freezes - all of which were not binding upon nor followed by the administration in power at the time.
At least Wroblewski did his homework and passed something that was more than a gesture.
As a lawyer, I thought that this was something you would be aware of.
None of this is an "opinion." It is the facts. My statement was "I hope you simply did not have the facts."
To be fair, I think you were characterizing Tim's shame as his Sales Tax votes.
I was addressing your statement that the resolution effectively elimating all vacant positions was a meanlingless gesture. It wasn't.
Assuming, for the sake of argument, you are correct in your statement regarding the February and March hiring freeze resolutions. Why didn't he do his homework before the first one? Why wait till two resolutions have passed?
Also, why did he attend meetings that violated the Open Meetings Law on two occasions after a lawsuit was already commenced regarding these illegal private meetings?
What is his position on the issues we are facing? Your guess is as good as mine because his website is devoid of any substance. He does not respond to any of my e-mails and then on the one occasion that he does it appeared to be perfunctory blow off.
Quite frankly I am leaning towards voting for anyone, but him, because of this apparent lack of substance.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Originally posted by amtichnik
1. I thought that the premise of your argument was that the June resolution was redundant.
2. My point was that you were factually and legally incorrect. The prior "hiring freezes" we a nullity and of no legal effect.
3. I would venture to guess over the years that there have been more than 10 hires freezes - all of which were not binding upon nor followed by the administration in power at the time.
4. At least Wroblewski did his homework and passed something that was more than a gesture.
5. As a lawyer, I thought that this was something you would be aware of.
6. None of this is an "opinion." It is the facts. My statement was "I hope you simply did not have the facts."
7. To be fair, I think you were characterizing Tim's shame as his Sales Tax votes.
8. I was addressing your statement that the resolution effectively elimating all vacant positions was a meanlingless gesture. It wasn't.
Response 1: my point is that the June resolution is both redundant AND inadequate.
Response 2: what is your basis for this conclusion? Didn’t Judge Lane already conclude "The fact that a two/thirds majority of the county legislature held an inconclusive meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Law prior to finally taking action on the 2005 budget, without more, is not sufficient cause for overturning resolutions adopted later at a public session of the full Legislature."
I understand that there is a summary judgment action pending but the relief demanded is to require the Leg to abide by the Open Meetings Law. If so, and the relief sought is no longer the voidance of the adopted resolutions isn’t even a victory for the plaintiff more symbolic than substantive?
Response 4: if the Feb. resolution is not void it is operative and if it is operative it is my OPINION that it renders the June resolution a mere 'gesture'.
Response 5: is there really a need for rudeness?
Response 6: you are playing a game of semantics. You must realize that opinions are based on one's interpretation of the facts.
Response 7: the beauty of the written word is that it can be the messenger of many layers of meaning. A statement does not have to be capable of only one meaning. Yes, I am characterizing Tim’s shame as his sales tax votes as well as his cheap bartering away of his vote.
Response 8: As mentioned earlier, you and I have different opinions on this.
Cindy
Originally posted by CindyLocklear
Response 1: my point is that the June resolution is both redundant AND inadequate.
Response 2: what is your basis for this conclusion? Didn’t Judge Lane already conclude "The fact that a two/thirds majority of the county legislature held an inconclusive meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Law prior to finally taking action on the 2005 budget, without more, is not sufficient cause for overturning resolutions adopted later at a public session of the full Legislature."
I understand that there is a summary judgment action pending but the relief demanded is to require the Leg to abide by the Open Meetings Law. If so, and the relief sought is no longer the voidance of the adopted resolutions isn’t even a victory for the plaintiff more symbolic than substantive?
Response 4: if the Feb. resolution is not void it is operative and if it is operative it is my OPINION that it renders the June resolution a mere 'gesture'.
Response 5: is there really a need for rudeness?
Response 6: you are playing a game of semantics. You must realize that opinions are based on one's interpretation of the facts.
Response 7: the beauty of the written word is that it can be the messenger of many layers of meaning. A statement does not have to be capable of only one meaning. Yes, I am characterizing Tim’s shame as his sales tax votes as well as his cheap bartering away of his vote.
Response 8: As mentioned earlier, you and I have different opinions on this.
Cindy
Would you agree that the difference of opinion as to the redundacy and adequacy of the Wroblewski is settled by an answer to the question?
Did the legislative branch's resolutions prior to June 6, 2005 legally bind the executive branch not to hire any new employees?
I believe the prior resolutions did legally bind the executive branch. Just because they chose to accede to the Executive Branches argument that they were not unless done in the manner of the June 6, resolution rather than take other action such as removal from office of the executive officials or judicial action in the form of a declaratory judgment action does not change their prior validity. Section 8.06 of the Erie County Administrative Code provides "No payroll, estimate or account providing for the payment of wages or salaries shall be approved by the commissioner of finance or county comptroller unless it bears the certificate of the commissioner of personnel that the persons named therein have been, during the period specified, employed in their respective positions in accordance with law and rules made pursuant to law." The positions filled in violation of the legislative resolutions were not mad in accordance with law or rules made pursuant to law. The legislature has the power under the County Charter (Article II section 2.02(c)) to "such legislature shall have the power to fix or change the compensation of all officers and employees paid from county funds except members of the judiciary."
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Cindy,
I think you replied to my post as part of your response to amtichnik. In relation to my action on the Open Meetings law it will not be a symbolic gesture. In a pre-trial conference we had in June the lawyers representing the County siezed on the same language you pointed out from the decision. Justice Lane said that it was more than a mere technical violation it was a willful one. Justice Lane went on that he did not grant the relief I was asking for because the equities tipped in the Countie's favor do to the potential chaos if an injunction issued. I have since amended my complaint to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the EC Legislature. This will establish for any future action challenging a legislative enactment based on the OML a pattern of violations that I lacked as of January 12, 2005 when the hearing was held. It will also provide a mechanism in the event that the EC Legislature violates the OML and not pass an act, in that case one can go to court and have them held in civil or criminal contempt based on the violation of the injunction I seek.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
DTW; Thankyou for this explanation of the events and current posture of the case. I was aware that you amended your complaint and that 'undoing' the resolutions associated with the violations of the OML was off the table, but I was unclear of the potential outcome of the relief you demanded in the Amended Complaint. The remedies going forward are much more agressive than I expected. Good work! I hope you prevail.Originally posted by dtwarren
Cindy,
I think you replied to my post as part of your response to amtichnik. In relation to my action on the Open Meetings law it will not be a symbolic gesture. In a pre-trial conference we had in June the lawyers representing the County siezed on the same language you pointed out from the decision. Justice Lane said that it was more than a mere technical violation it was a willful one. Justice Lane went on that he did not grant the relief I was asking for because the equities tipped in the Countie's favor do to the potential chaos if an injunction issued. I have since amended my complaint to seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the EC Legislature. This will establish for any future action challenging a legislative enactment based on the OML a pattern of violations that I lacked as of January 12, 2005 when the hearing was held. It will also provide a mechanism in the event that the EC Legislature violates the OML and not pass an act, in that case one can go to court and have them held in civil or criminal contempt based on the violation of the injunction I seek.
Cindy
"Would you agree that the difference of opinion as to the redundacy and adequacy of the Wroblewski is settled by an answer to the question? "Did the legislative branch's resolutions prior to June 6, 2005 legally bind the executive branch not to hire any new employees?
This is how I see it:
If the Legislature's resolutions prior to the Wroblewski Resolution were legally binding on the Administration, then Wroblewski's Resolution was redundant.
"Adequacy" is a separate question. "Adequacy" is an analysis that focuses on whether the 'hiring freeze/vacant job chop" went far enough. Earlier I suggested several other conditions that should have been foundational to a 'yes' vote. So, if you maintain that the Wroblewski resolution was not redundant, in my opinion, it still was inadequate.
Overall, keep in mind though that I do not believe the Yes Vote was the correct decision.
Cindy
The "adequacy of the measure" and the "propriety of the 'Yes' vote" are certainly subjective determinations based upon "opinions" which can vary without some objective measure of what is "adequate" and what facts and cicumstanes would make a yes vote appropriate.
P.S. I don't know whether we have a difference of opinion or not.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions