Merger of Receiver of Taxes and Town Clerk

[dtwarren]

This issue is on the Ballot this election. There is technically an election contest between Briedenstein and Fahey for a one year term if the proposition passes or a four year term if it fails.

See: http://elections.erie.gov/SampleBall...PrecinctID=977

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

When the downsizing town government mob decided to start with West Seneca, you saw it splashed everywhere with press conferences, articles and interviews in the newspapers, TV and radio. Boasts of town savings and "letting the people decide" was their battle cry. Where is Kevin Gaughn and his downsizing "squad" on this one. It's another chance for "the voters" to decide how "our" town does business. If the receiver of taxes salary ($50,619), and her full time clerk typist ($39,000) were eliminated it easily exceeds over a $100,000/yearly when benefits are included. That's almost twice what the town saved with the elimination of the 2 council members.

Given the greater savings potential and the possible elimination of yet another of "the excessive amount of elected officials" in our area, it seems odd that the downsizing posse' and their ringleaders are unusually silent on this one.

WHY ?

[dtwarren]

There are a lot of things with greater savings potential that are happening and can happen. However, they are not glitzy and will not attract headline which are fueled by nothing more than a feel good knee jerk reaction so they do not push them. Just as an example during the height of the downsizing petition frenzy last fall Mr. Gaughan and his followers were noticeably absent from the town's budget hearing and most likely they will be this year as well.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

they are not glitzy and will not attract headlines.

You're right. It was evident whenever the camera was on him that the Grand Wizard of the downsizing movement was as giddy as a school girl that all eyes were on him.

[wnyfuture]

Why would Kevin Gaughn attend a budget hearing for the Town of West Seneca? He is busy downsizing other towns and soon to be dissolving villages. You may disagree with his idea but you have to applaud his effort.

The true savings would be removing the town police and using either the county or state police but no one other than a few people would be interested in this movement. Merging the Highway Department with another town or country would also save a lot of money. Knocking down the ice rink would save more money.

[Dougles]

The true savings would be removing the town police and using either the county or state police but no one other than a few people would be interested in this movement. Merging the Highway Department with another town or country would also save a lot of money. Knocking down the ice rink would save more money.

This most likely isn't true. First State police make almost TWICE as much as any local PO. Forexample after 5 years a state trooper makes $105K and an amherst PO only makes about 68K, sheiffs make a tad more.

[dtwarren]

Why would Kevin Gaughn attend a budget hearing for the Town of West Seneca?

I was not referring to Kevin Gaughan as much as I was his followers in town.

[Spirit of Ebenezer]

I was not referring to Kevin Gaughan as much as I was his followers in town.

Such as our "Herr" leader in town posting a sign supporting a Receiver of taxes candidate on their parcel rather than advocating abolishing the position ?

[wnyfuture]

This most likely isn't true. First State police make almost TWICE as much as any local PO. Forexample after 5 years a state trooper makes $105K and an amherst PO only makes about 68K, sheiffs make a tad more.

Okay but the town of west seneca residents fund west seneca police while the entire state would fund the state troopers. We are already funding the sheriff's and state troopers. The lowest WS Police salary was about 61k a year and a lot of police officers made over $100k.

We save money on a lot of items such as Police Dispatch.

What are some examples of savings in other counties as a result of consolidation?
1. Town of Clay: Saved $362,323 in 2008 and $1,286,856 in 2009.17 With a projected savings of $17 million over the next decade this equates to 20% of Clay’s budget costs without a reduction in service – matching other police consolidation studies that predicted 10-20% in savings.18 If this formula were applied to total town and village police costs ($900M) the total savings would be $90,000,000 to $180,000,000.

2. Onondaga County Consolidated Dispatch: Within the first year of the County consolidating the dispatching duties of seven entities, the County saved $680,000.

3. Genesee County and the City of Batavia Consolidated Police Dispatch: According to the joint shared services grant application filed by Genesee County and the City of Batavia, annual saving will be $60,000 with Batavia projecting $200,000 in annual savings (from reduction in personnel and equipment costs) by merging into Genesee County

Where is the savings?
What are the advantages of consolidating police services other then saving money?

Consolidation can mean an increase in services for the municipality. The Town of Clay, at no additional charge, received support service functions from the Onondaga Sheriff’s and access to County Detectives, the Abused Person Unit, Evidence Technicians, Accident Investigation Technicians, and special units such as K-9, SWAT, and Aviation.21

Other advantages that have been noted by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco in analyzing the city of Las Vegas, the City of San Antonio, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Nashville, Northern York County, and Los Angeles County are:

1. An elected County Sheriff would have more freedom from political pressure and be more accountable to the public.
2. Consolidation can improve efficiency by eliminating duplicative services.
3. Additional gains can come from economies of scale.
4. Duplicative administrative costs could be more efficiently used in a shared environment, which could possibly absorb overtime costs.
5. Fixing possible inequities between city and county taxpayers.
6. Can provide more accountability and responsiveness in local government.
7. Better-trained personnel.
8. Lower personnel turnover rate.
9. More efficient hiring.
10. Lower insurance costs.
11. Increased opportunities for innovation.
12. Reducing equipment costs buy increasing the ability to buy in bulk.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Okay but the town of west seneca residents fund west seneca police while the entire state would fund the state troopers. We are already funding the sheriff's and state troopers. The lowest WS Police salary was about 61k a year and a lot of police officers made over $100k.

We save money on a lot of items such as Police Dispatch.

What are some examples of savings in other counties as a result of consolidation?
1. Town of Clay: Saved $362,323 in 2008 and $1,286,856 in 2009.17 With a projected savings of $17 million over the next decade this equates to 20% of Clay’s budget costs without a reduction in service – matching other police consolidation studies that predicted 10-20% in savings.18 If this formula were applied to total town and village police costs ($900M) the total savings would be $90,000,000 to $180,000,000.

2. Onondaga County Consolidated Dispatch: Within the first year of the County consolidating the dispatching duties of seven entities, the County saved $680,000.

3. Genesee County and the City of Batavia Consolidated Police Dispatch: According to the joint shared services grant application filed by Genesee County and the City of Batavia, annual saving will be $60,000 with Batavia projecting $200,000 in annual savings (from reduction in personnel and equipment costs) by merging into Genesee County

Where is the savings?
What are the advantages of consolidating police services other then saving money?

Consolidation can mean an increase in services for the municipality. The Town of Clay, at no additional charge, received support service functions from the Onondaga Sheriff’s and access to County Detectives, the Abused Person Unit, Evidence Technicians, Accident Investigation Technicians, and special units such as K-9, SWAT, and Aviation.21

Other advantages that have been noted by the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco in analyzing the city of Las Vegas, the City of San Antonio, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Nashville, Northern York County, and Los Angeles County are:

1. An elected County Sheriff would have more freedom from political pressure and be more accountable to the public.
2. Consolidation can improve efficiency by eliminating duplicative services.
3. Additional gains can come from economies of scale.
4. Duplicative administrative costs could be more efficiently used in a shared environment, which could possibly absorb overtime costs.
5. Fixing possible inequities between city and county taxpayers.
6. Can provide more accountability and responsiveness in local government.
7. Better-trained personnel.
8. Lower personnel turnover rate.
9. More efficient hiring.
10. Lower insurance costs.
11. Increased opportunities for innovation.
12. Reducing equipment costs buy increasing the ability to buy in bulk.

Sorry, but I am lost here. Please explain what police forces are you advocating consolidating services with? The Lancaster Town and Viallge police forces merged and despite what the officials say, savings were not had. If you are referring to dissolving the West Seneca police and going with the state or county police force then savings will be had but certainly with a lessining of services and protection. Are you saying that you are not getting a bang for your buck with your police force?

[Lee Chowaniec]

[dtwarren QUOTE]There are a lot of things with greater savings potential that are happening and can happen. However, they are not glitzy and will not attract headline which are fueled by nothing more than a feel good knee jerk reaction so they do not push them. Just as an example during the height of the downsizing petition frenzy last fall Mr. Gaughan and his followers were noticeably absent from the town's budget hearing and most likely they will be this year as well

.

I was not referring to Kevin Gaughan as much as I was his followers in town.

How true DT. They worry about the nickle and dime savings and are no shows at budget hearings where the real money is being spent.

[4248]

Get real:

First you keep saying Mr.Gaughn's "Followers" - thats meant to infer he controls them. The people who have voted to support downsizing are from every Political Party and Many Groups.

The "Followers" are the blind "Party Line Voters" - their like Lemmings - those are "Followers."

Now, in another attempt to discredit a actual successful effort at actually changing government - you try to blame budgets on Mr.Gaughn.

Get real, what could his presence or the presence of any taxpayers do to change any Towns Budget.

Taxpayers are routinely ignored or shut out altogether. Where were either of you guys for either the budgets or downsizing actions?

Even if you as taxpayers went to the budget meetings - (which I believe Lee did/has)

• Explain to readers how they can affect actual change to the budget!
• Explain how to have a line item removed because you don't like it.
• Explain how a taxpayer can reduce the stated pay increases for Town Employees!
• What Patronage Positions can taxpayers demand be removed or unfunded?

Stop sitting there mashing those who do accomplish change. No matter how small - it was successful.

Quit massaging your own ego's by saying what others should do. If you guys could figure out how to get more than a handful of people behind you - you would smile for the camera as well!

[wnyfuture]

This is honest question because I do not know the true answer but how many lawsuits has DTWarren be involved in the past five years?

Kevin Gaughn is trying to make a difference, good for him, he has been very successful at his goal of accomplishing this mission. He's done more in the last few months than most politicians have done in their entire term.

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/825449.html
Take a look at the comments

[Lee Chowaniec]

4248 wrote:

And what would their attendance do
________________________________________
Get real:

First you keep saying Mr.Gaughn's "Followers" - thats meant to infer he controls them. The people who have voted to support downsizing are from every Political Party and Many Groups.

Your inference, not mine. The voters of West Seneca were free to vote whatever way they chose.

The "Followers" are the blind "Party Line Voters" - their like Lemmings - those are "Followers."

Can’t respond here because I don’t know the meaning of your statement.

Now, in another attempt to discredit a actual successful effort at actually changing government - you try to blame budgets on Mr.Gaughn.

Are you saying that downsizing government changes government management? Than I would tell you to get real. Changing government only occurs when you change the makeup of government, not size; which is what some of us advocate.

While you are enamored with the Pied Piper of government downsizing and the effort he put in to unite a disgruntled public in reacting to getting screwed over by public officials, some of us would like to see the same voters at town board meetings trying to affect change.

Gaughan did well in reducing boards from seven members to five in larger municipalities and going from five to three in areas of small population. It is my opinion he failed to make any headway in the Town of Lancaster. He crows about reducing Lancaster and Depew Village Boards from seven to five and leaves a town with a population 0f 43,000 with 15 board members within its boundary. Yes, now he’s going to look at dissolving villages because some screamed that’s where change will have the greatest financial impact.

Get real, what could his presence or the presence of any taxpayers do to change any Towns Budget.

Neither Warren nor I said Gaughan should be present at budget meetings. Stop distorting the facts. It would be nice to see more taxpayer participation at town board meetings so the few that do attend could receive support and maybe, just maybe, affect change.

Taxpayers are routinely ignored or shut out altogether. Where were either of you guys for either the budgets or downsizing actions?

I do not favor a reduction in board size in Lancaster, so I wasn’t screaming for referendum. I attend all budget meetings and try to affect fiscal responsibility. I haven’t seen you at any of the meetings. Outside of the five to six regulars who appear regularly at town board meetings and challenge the staus quo, how do expect change to occur?

Even if you as taxpayers went to the budget meetings - (which I believe Lee did/has)

• Explain to readers how they can affect actual change to the budget!

Can’t say whether change can be affected when there is no vote on the budget. But, hey we try.

Explain how to have a line item removed because you don't like it.

Next to impossible! But hey a few of us try.

• Explain how a taxpayer can reduce the stated pay increases for Town Employees!

Again, next to impossible, but we try.

• What Patronage Positions can taxpayers demand be removed or unfunded?

Please tell me how this can be done when true change, removal of elected officials, does not occur.

Stop sitting there mashing those who do accomplish change. No matter how small - it was successful.

Change? What meaningful change will come about? What was successful, getting voters to vent? Will downsizing affect a change in governance direction?

Quit massaging your own ego's by saying what others should do. If you guys could figure out how to get more than a handful of people behind you - you would smile for the camera as well!

In my own small way I try to affect change by supporting individual and/or group causes/issues I believe are legitimate and need redress and by putting out information that does not appear in the media – the other side of the story. My ego does not need massaging, sir. It is very difficult at times to attend Town and School Board meetings after doing so, but you wouldn’t know because you don’t.

4248’s post was aimed at Daniel Warren and me. I will answer on my behalf (blue responses). As this has relevance for the Town of Lancaster, it was also published on the Lancaster thread.

[4248]

Just as an example during the height of the downsizing petition frenzy last fall Mr. Gaughan and his followers were noticeably absent from the town's budget hearing and most likely they will be this year as well.

[quote=Lee Chowaniec;560168]Your inference, not mine. The voters of West Seneca were free to vote whatever way they chose.

• Theres no "Inference" he stated it as quoted above.
• Your defending his statements because your against down sizing.
• Your against the only actions that have been successful.
• For those who don't know - this DTWarren is the same man wasting tax dollars by suing West Seneca to hold back on downsizing - Why because his friend wants to get a seat on the Board - then downsize. Self Interests!

Sit here and talk tax savings and sue taxpayers - taxpayers will pay the costs so Mr.DT Warren can fight to stall what the West Seneca taxpayers voted for.

I guess those are actions of a true reformer?!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LC states : Are you saying that downsizing government changes government management? Than I would tell you to get real. Changing government only occurs when you change the makeup of government, not size; which is what some of us advocate.
What you "Advocate" isn't working - voters aren't supporting your efforts - they vocally agree with you but it doesn't make its way to the Polls -WHY?
Change occurs - when changes are made - any actual change creates a reaction. While "Advocating" what you feel is real is your right - don't become an obstruction to those who offer alternatives that are actually working to unite Voters.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC: While you are enamored with the Pied Piper of government downsizing and the effort he put in to unite a disgruntled public in reacting to getting screwed over by public officials, some of us would like to see the same voters at town board meetings trying to affect change.

• Why - The Town Board wont allow them to speak - speech is limited, timed and restricted.
• Why as you stated - change is highly unlikely just because your standing there.
• Spectators cant change the vote out come.
• Whether they are disgruntled or not - the voters seek change and they actually succeeded - aren't you actually trying to motivate the same "Disgruntled Public"
• ----------------------------------------------------------------------------LC : It is my opinion he failed to make any headway in the Town of Lancaster.

He failed to make head way at the Lancaster Town level, because those who attended the meetings failed to support his efforts. Who's fault is that - he heard the vocal minority - the angry Elected tax eaters and followed their wishes.
Much unlike the Lancaster Town Board Members you stand in front of -
he acted on what he was told! He moved on!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC: Yes, now he’s going to look at dissolving villages because some screamed that’s where change will have the greatest financial impact.
So, once again he is listening and refocusing efforts and energy. Thats what true leaders do - they re-adjust to improve tactics and create a higher likelihood off success.

So will will join that effort or just comment on that also?

LC: Neither Warren nor I said Gaughan should be present at budget meetings. Stop distorting the facts.
My response in that area was not addressed to you - once again you chose to seize the moment. But his quote is at the top of this page.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LC: It would be nice to see more taxpayer participation at town board meetings so the few that do attend could receive support and maybe, just maybe, affect change.
Highly unlikely(as even you stated) - the Polls are the only place that will change how Elected Officials behave.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LC: I do not favor a reduction in board size in Lancaster, so I wasn’t screaming for referendum. I attend all budget meetings and try to affect fiscal responsibility. I haven’t seen you at any of the meetings. Outside of the five to six regulars who appear regularly at town board meetings and challenge the staus quo, how do expect change to occur?

Your correct about me not attending Lancaster Town Board Meetings - I will not waste my time sitting in front of a Group of Elected Clowns who don't give a crap about those in attendance.

They sit there, time you, shut you down and go about their scheduled events. When they are done Supervisor Giza (some times even before the meeting starts) hands a "Press Release - Talking Points Package" to the news re-writers - end of meeting. What have you accomplished?

Never - Never once has a vote been reversed or changed during a Lancaster Town Board Meeting because of audience participation - NEVER ONCE!

Here's the perfect example of my points - Your responses:
LC States:

• Can’t say whether change can be affected when there is no vote on the budget. But, hey we try.
• Next to impossible! But hey a few of us try.
• Again, next to impossible, but we try.

Please tell me how this can be done when true change, removal of elected officials, does not occur. You answered your own question!

LC asked: Change? What meaningful change will come about?

1. Reduction in the size of Government -
2. Voters of all Party's Voted - together as one voice.
3. You will never make change using Partisan methods.

LC Stated: It is very difficult at times to attend Town and School Board meetings after doing so, but you wouldn’t know because you don’t.

Again yes you are the tireless voice in the dark - the one screaming out for help! You can mock me all you want - it usually happens when people run out of logical rebuttals - I'm used to it.
I spent many years doing it your way - at first they smiled and even shook my hand - Giza and the Committee Boys smiled - they were actually laughing.
They knew as long as I was behind the podium and not behind the desk - there was no fear. Just let them (taxpayers) talk - then they go away!
They would even allow me to get "Inside Info" - but, only what legally they had to show me.
I learned my lessons - I will work quietly with those I chose. I will support anyone from any party who actually can create change.

No matter how small - no matter how insignificant the amount - as the Elected Ones say, "Its only a drop in the bucket" - their drops created the Niagara Falls of tax dollars now being wasted..

Quit trying to be right - I may be wrong but, there seems to be thousands of voters I agree with. I may not have the correct appearance or be where you think I should - but I agree with thousands of taxpayers!

Playing their game - by their rules they give you - ain't gonna change their game - its not supposed too!

February is Coming!
Don't forget to Vote!