As many folks are aware, citizens (like myself) in the Town of Orchard Park have an important decision to make regarding downsizing our Town Board from five members to three.In the ongoing downsizing debate, whether here or in other Towns and Villages, there are obviously numerous pros and cons on both sides of the issue.
More...
Sounds like Orchard Park residents have concerns same as we do here in Lancaster. I for one prefer to downsize to 3 council members here in Lancaster but have the feeling residents will never have a say in that decision.Bob Giza will never allow it.
From the sound of the linked article it sounds like Orchard Park's problem is political and has more to do with the elected officials than the number of people on their Town Board. Wouldn't reducing their number only give them more authority?Originally Posted by speakup
I wonder if the savings would be enough for taxpayers to get back the "one pizza per week" that the schools took away from them?
Hmmm.. could work out that way depending on which three remain.
I must respectfully disagree with Ron's position in this article. It is not only the increased potential for violating the Open Meetings Law it is also the potential for chilling otherwise permissible discussion among board members on a board of three members. It is also the increased litigation costs associated with defending the town on more claims of OML violations seeking to overturn adverse decisions to applicants for zoning and other issues determined by the board.
Although I can understand the frustration over the belief that the current board is violating the OML fairly regularly the remedy for this is in the courts. I know this is not easy from firsthand experience, but this is the route not decreasing the board and increasing the potential for violations.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
From: http://www.buffalonews.com/city/comm...icle664713.ece
Orchard Park Town Board members and residents got a taste Wednesday night of what it will be like next year when the board shrinks from five members to three.
With two members absent from the regular meeting, the three members who will make up the board in January discussed how difficult it will be to comply with the Open Meetings Law.
State law requires that when a quorum of the Town Board convenes to discusses public business, the meeting must be open to the public. That’s not a problem today, when three members of the five-member board constitute a quorum.
But next year, the quorum will be two, making it impossible, for example, for a board member and the supervisor to discuss town business in person or on the phone without giving prior notice of the meeting and making sure it is open to the public.
“The reality is, we communicate on a daily basis. We talk 10 times a day,” Councilman David Kaczor said, adding that conversations range from billing to technology.
It is “very simple stuff, which really has no impact on anything in terms of process or commitment of funds,” he said.
Supervisor Janis Colarusso said most board contact outside meetings consists of operational issues, “Should I do this, what do you think about that, how’s this sound, what’s your opinion?”
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote