Village of Lancaster court abolishment makes sense

[Lee Chowaniec]

After reading this morning’s Buffalo News report titled ‘Village of Lancaster trustees argue over court abolishment,” how could Village or Town of Lancaster taxpayers not come to the conclusion that such abolishment would be a win-win for both parties – while wondering at the same while the stall by the other Village Board members; and the waste of time and grant money to come to a foregone conclusion.

The Village saves $72,000 a year less for a system that is taking in less in revenues than it is spending and the Town court system realizes a gain that offsets the difference it experiences between revenue received and expenditure.

But for reasons of ‘autonomy’ (political doublespeak for government control) and the need to perform an independent study to evaluate court operations, the Mayor and other Trustees openly oppose immediate abolishment of the court operation as proposed by Trustee Russell Sugg.

In the Buffalo News report Trustee Dawn Robinson called Sugg’s proposal “smoke and mirrors” and noted that there is state grant money available next May to study the issue. Robinson declared, “I don’t want to be penny wise and dollar foolish and lose our autonomy. Sometimes, just the numbers alone don’t relate to efficiency.”

What else can you call a system that is bleeding money, and more so every year according to Sugg’s analytical report, but inefficient and dollar foolish when there is an opportunity to stop the bleeding and have the town take over the Village’s court system. Or is Robinson inferring the town’s court system is incapable of taking on the added task.

Savings could only be had with court abolishment, not consolidation as alternately proposed by Sugg in the interim. Abolishment would most like bring about the job loss of several department personnel as they provide no other inter-departmental Villge services. Government and unions often protect their staff for self-serving agendas, often not in the best interest of resident taxpayers.

In the News report Trustee Robinson charges Sugg as being a maverick, an opportunist, as being disingenuous and aligning himself with Lancaster Town Supervisor, in using this issue as a platform to run for a town council seat in 2015.

What is disingenuous is that Mr. Sugg has been pursuing such action to bring about cost savings since March and has been met with Village board resistance every step of the way. Fiscal responsibility be damned. Whose best interest is being served here, the residents or the status quo Village government? What is disingenuous is that the public has no say in the matter, at the recent work session or by referendum in the next Village election.

As a resident recently stated to the Lancaster Town Board on the hiring of Tom Irish, “This does not pass the smell test.”

Resolution for grant application

Sugg is taking the board at their word Monday night on applying for a grant to get an independent study for dissolving the village courts. He submitted the following resolution that will be motioned for at the next Village Board meeting.

Trustee Sugg will present the following resolution for consideration:

Resolution authorizing the Village of Lancaster to submit an application for a Local Government Efficiency (LGE) grant during the next available grant cycle to secure funds to hire an independent consultant to perform a feasibility study for the purpose to provide a cost benefit analysis related to the potential dissolution of the Village court system; and further directing Mayor Maute to sign and execute all documents related to this grant application.

[4248]

So Trustee Robinson and her friends want more tax dollars spent to do a study about wasting tax money

So typical of a Politician - lets spend tax dollars to fund a study ! We can study the fact that the Village is already wasteing tax dollars running a court that's loosing money -

As already stated - the only reason Trustee Robinson and friends want to stall this off is to protect tax funded patronage positions.

The Justice is tax funded - his benefits are tax funded - if he gets one, his pension will be tax funded.

Others who have been appointed to work with and for the Justice are tax funded as well !

Their pay is tax funded - their benefits are tax funded - if eligible their pensions are tax funded.

So the Village home owners are subsidizing the cost to run a loosing court operation and its appointed Party Players .

Folks - you cant make this stuff up - its what these Party Playing people call "Public Service" -
they are doing it "For Us" -

Consolidating this looser supporting Court system with the Towns system would be just further compounding the tax funded insult.

But to them - if they can help protect their Party Friends Patronage jobs - its worth it - after all - it doesn't cost them a dime - ITS ALL TAX FUNDED !

OH ! Yes and as always - don't forget to vote !

[Lee Chowaniec]

While Village of Lancaster court expenses have only increased by a few thousand dollars over the years from 2008-09, revenue receipts have declined by $20,000. It is my understanding that when the Village invited Police Chief Gill to explain why revenues were declining he answered that it was because of the police presence in the Village.

The police merger between the Town and the Village in 2003 appears to be working well. If memory serves right, the Village did not want to give up the court system in 2003 because it was a revenue maker. It no longer is, has not been for many years and it makes sense to abolish it and have the town take it over. A win-win for the Village and Town taxpayers, but not seen in such light by the Village politicos.

Colby for Town Justice

[grump]

So Trustee Robinson and her friends want more tax dollars spent to do a study about wasting tax money

So typical of a Politician - lets spend tax dollars to fund a study ! We can study the fact that the Village is already wasteing tax dollars running a court that's loosing money -

As already stated - the only reason Trustee Robinson and friends want to stall this off is to protect tax funded patronage positions.

The Justice is tax funded - his benefits are tax funded - if he gets one, his pension will be tax funded.

Others who have been appointed to work with and for the Justice are tax funded as well !

Their pay is tax funded - their benefits are tax funded - if eligible their pensions are tax funded.

So the Village home owners are subsidizing the cost to run a loosing court operation and its appointed Party Players .

Folks - you cant make this stuff up - its what these Party Playing people call "Public Service" -
they are doing it "For Us" -

Consolidating this looser supporting Court system with the Towns system would be just further compounding the tax funded insult.

But to them - if they can help protect their Party Friends Patronage jobs - its worth it - after all - it doesn't cost them a dime - ITS ALL TAX FUNDED !

OH ! Yes and as always - don't forget to vote !

I've read things that suggest that it will be worthwhile to eliminate the village court but I don't think any of those said that it was because the court or it's staff are loose. Please provide documentation for your assertion that the court and it's staff are loose. I think that the village board has a fiduciary duty to its taxpayers to study the fiscal impact. Of course, 4248 is free to accept the assertions of one board member, especially if the court and staff are "loose". 4248 doesn't have to live with the consequences.

[4248]

So now Grumps a cyber stalker -

Transferring the court duties from the Village to the Town Makes sense - tax wise !

Bringing any of its patronage workers, including the Justice - to the Town will negate any possible savings or gains.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Abolishment is the only court action that makes financial sense. The town has to pick up the court system but is in no way required to add employees; and in fact they don't need to.

Court consolidation, merger, whatever you want to label it would be fiscally irresponsible.

[gorja]

Have they put out the villages numbers as Lee did in this post from another thread?

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Town of Lancaster Court Costs vs. Revenue Received
2009 - $279,690 (Expense) - $207,092 (Revenue Received)
2010 - $290,171 (Expense) - $224,575 (Revenue Received)
2011 –$299,077 (Expense) - $181,347 (Revenue Received)
2012 - $303,883 (Expense) - $191,707 (Revenue Received)
2013 - $303,283 (Expense) - $231,103 (Revenue Received)

Also, has Mr Sugg put out any numbers regarding the village's portion of the court costs after abolishment?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lancaster Village Court Revenues and Expenses Analysis

2012-13

Expenses – $71,589.66
Revenue Received - $37,627.50
Net Difference - $33,962.16

Other Costs
$38,028.54 - FICA, Health Insurance, Retirement, General Insurance, Work Comp Ins. Disability Ins.

Estimated net difference $71,990.70 (Total Expense – Revenue Received)

2011-12

Expenses – $69,570.14
Revenue Received - $44,444.00
Net Difference - $25,126.14

Other Costs

$32,662.02 - FICA, Health Insurance, Retirement, General Insurance, Work Comp Ins. Disability Ins.

Estimated net difference $57,788.16 (Total Expense – Revenue Received)

2010-2011

Expenses – $$68,656.38
Revenue Received - $49,667.50
Net Difference - $18,988.88

Other Costs

$29,443.12 - FICA, Health Insurance, Retirement, General Insurance, Work Comp Ins. Disability Ins.

Estimated net difference $48,432.00 (Total Expense – Revenue Received)

Summary

2012-13

Cost - revenue = $109,618.2 - $37,627.50 = $71,990.70

[gorja]

Thank you, Lee

[Wehner]

Does the town have the authority to increase taxes to village residents for any costs incurred by the transfer of court responsibility to the town. If the court looses money in the town court, can the town tax village residents to recover the incurred debt. Will there be a line drawn to determine whether a court proceeding is village or town. If this move proves to be successful what effect will it have in the depew court room.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Does the town have the authority to increase taxes to village residents for any costs incurred by the transfer of court responsibility to the town. If the court looses money in the town court, can the town tax village residents to recover the incurred debt. Will there be a line drawn to determine whether a court proceeding is village or town. If this move proves to be successful what effect will it have in the depew court room.

Perhaps I am missing something and if so will someone correct me.

If the Village decides to abolish its court system the Town has to take it over - on their terms which means they hire no one from the Village to fill positions they feel do not need filling. In other words the staffing in place is adequate to handle the extra work load all Depew staff is laid off.

As both courts have greater expenses than revenues received where do you think the money is coming from to offset the deficit but from the taxpayers.

Why should there be a line drawn to determine whether a court proceeding is Village or Town as it is now one court?

You ask, "If the abolishment is successful what effect will it have in the depew court room." What Depew court room? It has been abolished.

[4248]

Bottom line = the Village of Lancaster home owning tax payer saves money.

Any other argument/smoke put out by those defending continuation of the Village Court is just that - SMOKE!

The opposing Village Board Members are just trying to protect "Political Patronage" - the Village Court is unneeded - is a losing proposition - costs tax payers for pension benefits and staffing costs all off the backs of Village Tax Paying Home owners.

There is no person who can "Factually" state how keeping the Village Court could financially benefit the Village.

There has been no "Factual" information provided by opposing Board Members as to how abolishment wont save tax dollars.

Bottom line - the only reason the Village wants to waste more money on a study is to block voters/home owners from having a vote/voice in this issue. "FACT"

If they had any true justification for these tax funded positions they would have proudly - loudly stated them.

Ask your self one question - if they could make them selves look good - wouldn't they be screaming it from the mountain tops.

When they run out of "Factual Arguments" - they want to "Pay for a Study" - they want to hire someone to agree with their position - not the facts - their position.

Why do tax payers continually allow them to do this -