Bill O'Loughlin submitted the resolution to cut the budget of the Museum on December 30. He was not a councilmember until he took the oath of office Jan.1st. Therefore the entire museum vote and everything connected with the Museun was illegal,null and void. The Town Board's vote meant nothing.
Considering the non-binding nature of the resolution in the first place, is this the biggest thing to carp on? A budgetary resolution like the one passed regarding the museum is little more than an instruction to the chief fiscal officer of Amherst (the Supervisor) to prepare the annual budget of next year to cut the museum budget by $200,000. I wouldn't be surprised if the Grelick has already decided to simply not honor the resolution and bet on councilwomen Shratz and Woodward not to have the cojones to support the cut again in 2005 when the two are in the height of their re-election campaigns. Sad, but that's the kind of professionalism we've found in the Supervisor's office.
If that's not satisfactory, is it asking too much to think that O'Loughlin left it with the clerk's office on the 30th so they knew it was coming for the upcoming meeting, and was officially submitted, entered, logged, whatever, automatically the next day.
It is no less certain than it is important... that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.
~Federalist 51~
Why are people so willing to spend tax revenue on a museum when a majority would rather not have the money spent?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by WNYresident
Why are people so willing to spend tax revenue on a museum when a majority would rather not have the money spent? /QUOTE] Not quite certain what you mean by "a majority". A majority of the Town Board voted to reduce funding. Since when does that mean that that is what a majority of residents or users want or agree with? I'm sure you'll admit that if vocalness counts for anything (and I'm not certain that it means a real lot), the majority of people do not agree with the funding cut. And I'm absolutely convinced that very very few people condone the manner in which the matter was handled.
Remember that the opinions of anyone that does not pay Amherst taxes do not count in the slightest about this matter. It's real easy to agree/disagree with funding something if it isn't coming out of your pocket. How can a non-taxpayer vouche for it's value?
Not quite certain what you mean by "a majority". A majority of the Town Board voted to reduce funding. Since when does that mean that that is what a majority of residents or users want or agree with? I'm sure you'll admit that if vocalness counts for anything (and I'm not certain that it means a real lot), the majority of people do not agree with the funding cut. And I'm absolutely convinced that very very few people condone the manner in which the matter was handled.Originally posted by WNYresident
Why are people so willing to spend tax revenue on a museum when a majority would rather not have the money spent?
Remember that the opinions of anyone that does not pay Amherst taxes do not count in the slightest about this matter. It's real easy to agree/disagree with funding something if it isn't coming out of your pocket. How can a non-taxpayer vouche for it's value?
My opinion applies in all towns seeing i have family in amherst, cheektowaga, lancaster, etc. I also have employees that live in various towns in the area. My aunt who is disabled lives in amherst. She is on disability and SSI on a very limited income.
When asking someone do they want a cut in the museum let them know the full amount of tax revenue that goes into the museum. ALso let them know the lack of accountability for the people working there. This is not money going to the needy, the hungry or the poor, this is money going to support a NON essential town item. If the museum closed tomarrow life in amherst would still continue. THIS applies to a lot of items in WNY not just the amherst history museum "click".
I bet a lot of people that live in amherst until lately didn't know the full amount of thier tax revenue that was being spent for this history museum.
Perhaps the manner that cuts were handled wasn't polished but the end results are the same. It's a good decision period. But now on the other hand, if they only cut the musuem without cutting the drain of tax money to the pepsi center then it seems politics are involved. Cut one you cut them all, no favortism.
I think it's time for a new poll monday.
How should we word the poll:
Should the town or amherst cut funding for thier gem of a history museum?
Or word it:
Should Amherst relieve thier tax payers the burden of $600,000 or more a year towards the amherst history museum while property taxes continue to rise?
Or word it:
In a bold cost cutting move, was it wise to relieve amherst residents on fixed incomes the burden of $600,000 a year for the amherst history museum?
Just because you may be able to afford your property taxes doesn't mean everyone else in your town can. You should also think about the other people that pay to fund these items not just yourself.
Personally i would of cut over abundance of workers in the highway department first seeing Jim Tricolli states they have too many employees before cutting a museum. But when I read the amount of money it takes of tax revenue to run the museum it's time to pull it's plug and make it stand on its own.
A lot of other nonprofits do so can they.
Fact: Nobody knows what a majority of Amherst residents want relative to funding the museum (or highway or Pepsi Center or senior center). Because nobody asked the residents about those items.
Isn't that what should have happened?
If people didn't know (and, actually, still don't) know how much of their taxes goes to the museum, how can they have a valid or accurate opinion? They can't.
Fact: O'Loughlin's resolution was poorly constructed and poorly executed.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by |- Amherst Stakeholder -|
100+ people who own houses along the proposed peanut line come out in opposition of a trail in their backyard, 50 or so vocal people employed by or users of the former athletic facilities at the pepsi center, 150 employees, volunteers, or people who take credit for what the museum is now (as well as people who went to the meeting for other reasons and were handed signs). These displays in townhall may be impressive in the confines of the meeting room, but to what degree should we use a couple dozen staunch supporters of a program as a fair representative sample of the attitude of 116,000 residents?[i]I'm sure you'll admit that if vocalness counts for anything (and I'm not certain that it means a real lot), the majority of people do not agree with the funding cut.
Granted public support can be measured by apparent and subtle support, and that for every person that shows up at a meeting or writes a letter, it's unprofessional, even irresponsible to allow a mob showing up to a meeting to effect their vote. Consider this, allowing for a presence of 150 supporters of the museum at the meeting, and that a generous approximation is that for everyone who showed up or wrote a letter to the news represents 100 of their fellow residents, that represents... 15,000 residents, or about 13% of the town. Bowing to the intimidation of a large crowd is certainly a typical response for a person, but town government is responsible for all the citizens, not just those who get riled up.
I'm reminded of a quote from a West Wing episode a few days ago when one of the characters concluded a story with something to the effect of "and the congressman went home that day and asked his wife 'why is it only sons of bitches know how to lick a stamp?'"
It is no less certain than it is important... that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.
~Federalist 51~
And considering that there was virtually no general publicity or advance notice of this proposal, I'd say that such extrapolated representation is extraordinary. Imagine what it would have been like had it been announced, say, in the Buffalo News or even the Amherst Bee a week or two before.Originally posted by Publius
... 15,000 residents, or about 13% of the town.
The Republicans handled this thing wrong from the start. They have given students a wonderful example of how to turn a fantastic and worthy idea into a contentious argument where nobody will walk away feeling great. It could have been so much different if it weren't for a sixth grade (at best) mentality toward how to get things done. Can anyone ever again take O'Loughlin seriously when he says he wants to bring civility, decorum and cooperation to the Board? He's old, he's been passed by, and he's going to cause problems.
And considering that there was virtually no general publicity or advance notice of this proposal, I'd say that such extrapolated representation is extraordinary. Imagine what it would have been like had it been announced, say, in the Buffalo News or even the Amherst Bee a week or two before.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even if 3 times the amount of people came to complain about he cuts the formula would of worked out to 45,000 people represented if we used the Publius comment.
Originally posted by Publius
... 15,000 residents, or about 13% of the town.
No matter how you try to slice it up it's a lot of money going to the project. The tax payer should be happy that it will no longer fund items which the community doesn't need to fund at that level. The history musuem is a cool idea but there are more pressing matters where money could be used at that level. If other wasteful spending/curruption were all in check you could see funding little community projects worth while.
So when do they take the pepsi center burden off the taxpayer? Or at least hire an outside auditor/book keeper to make sure it's being ran properly.
The Museum is against the wall. They need to have a steady income coming in besides the Town money. First,they must disolve the group that is now assoicated with the museum unless they are willing to donate at least 2,000 dollars a year to help the museum to bring in inventive people, A good idea that I was given was in the summertime the museum should have a carnie all through the summer. Showing classic movies one night a week, graftsmanare just a few wayus to draw people. The people Lynn Beman has on her commiitte should be replaced with new blood.Complacement minds produce the same ideas over and over, Bring in mavericks in your group,they will help you tremendously.
In order to jumpstart fundraising and outside support, the Museum argues that it was a step forward to hire a fundraiser and grant-writer over the summer? Shouldn't that the job of the Museum Director? If not, why is the director making a mid $70k salary while the museum spend another $45k to pay for someone to do fundraising and networking?
It is no less certain than it is important... that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government.
~Federalist 51~
Good point Publius.
In order to jumpstart fundraising and outside support, the Museum argues that it was a step forward to hire a fundraiser and grant-writer over the summer? Shouldn't that the job of the Museum Director? If not, why is the director making a mid $70k salary while the museum spend another $45k to pay for someone to do fundraising and networking?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Isn't a grant writer just another person to get more money from the goverment? or are thier grants given from corporations to noble causes?
Are the people hired for this department asked to give experience and resumes? THere was a story about a new hire that supervisor grelick wanted that really didn't qualifiy for the position they had open. They had it blocked once but then it was re-worded to get the person hired. She didn't fill the requirements set by the state for the said position but they twisted something to get her hired. Perhaps these people are not qualified for what they are supposed to be doing. I dont know these people but boy do they churn through a LARGE chunk of change to run a museum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks