Let residents decide

[4248]

www.LetPeopleDecide.org

OUR EFORT TO LET VILLAGE RESIDENTS

DECIDE THEIR FUTURE HAS BEGUN

Preparations for this week's petition kick-off brought me into the homes of some remarkable people these past months. Folks with varying backgrounds and interests, who share four qualities: heightened sense of civic duty; deep affection for community, yearning for better days for all Western New Yorkers; and endless patience in putting up with me.

In the Village of Sloan, Mary and Bob Gaik graciously opened their home to our dozen volunteers, including our terrific Sloan captain, Linda Gossett. On more than one night, the laughter borne of Bob's stories could be heard up and down the street.

In the Village of Farnham, in the living room of co-captains Deb and Dave Wasmund's farm home, we learned the petition process as just outside the kitchen windows their cows grazed in an open field.

And in Williamsville, in the warmth of Connie Petit's living room fire, and then under the spell of Irma Lewis' grace (Irma is our new star), we felt immensely fortunate to have such kind and considerate colleagues.

Not all our welcomes were warm, though. In Lancaster, several residents with grave concerns about changing government structure came to our meeting at Eddie Ryan's restaurant. Their genuine opposition to change, combined with owner Ed Church's receipt of threats to boycott his business, created an unfortunate atmosphere of tension. The fact that citizens exercising their right to petition government for change would elicit such behavior saddened me (a copy of my letter of apology to Ed Church is below). But it will not deter our dedicated Lancaster volunteers' upcoming effort to give their fellow village residents a voice in their future.

Our village captains, magnificent volunteers, and even those Lancaster residents who opposed

reform at Eddie Ryans -- they're all citizens in full, deeply committed to Western New York. And because of each of them, our effort to let every village resident decide if they want to shed their extra layer of government had a banner beginning this week.

And I'm the luckiest fellow alive to be a part of it.

Note: This is from Kevin's most recent blog post. Click here to comment on this post.

KEVIN P. GAUGHAN
Liberty Building, Suite 1717
Buffalo, NY 14202
Tel. 716.362.0677
Fax. 716.842.1759
kevin@kevingaughan.com

[shortstuff]

He also sent a letter of apology to Eddie Ryan's owner stating his position isn't really that out of the ordinary.

Does the link take you to the letter 4248?

If it doesn't I could try and put that letter on the site.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey 4248, please explaing the following:

I may be naive at times so I have to ask why you made the statement that Gaughan was under the influence of the 'controlling' party at his Eddie Ryan visit when presenting his dog and pony show?

Why was Gaughan's meeting not held in a private home like at in the other three villages he visited? Why hold it in a restaurant without proper notification and with Gaughan declaring that he only expected 5 people to attend? He claims to have 360 volunteers in the Village of Lancaster, but no one welcomed him in their home?

As a former village resident who had been a proponent for dissolution for near 30 years, as then, I believe a plan should be instated before the referendim process takes place. As a Town of Lancaster resident for the past 16 years I wanted to hear whether and how town residents would be held harmless in the process. I am hearing they would not - as we were not with the police merger. Gaughan offered nothing in the way of specifics.

If Gaughan thought he was treated poorly, it was because he expected an audience filled with blind followers who did not care to hear about a plan that gave good reason for the dissolution.

No one has asked whether Mr. Gaughan offered to pay for a room to hold his meeting. Don't you think that would have had a bearing in the matter?

Lastly, you are absolutely right when you say it's up to the village residents to decide on dissolution. However, Mr. Gaughan was not truthful when presenting some of his data and in claiming the Village of Lancaster was already doing a study. The village has applied for a grant to do a study. The village is spot on in knowing that dissolution should be considered and are looking for information and to pass that information on to the residenst so that they can make a sound decision.

Because Mr. Gaughan did not not receive the warm and fuzzy reception he expected at Eddie Ryans, that people voiced concerns and took a show me approach as to cost savings and job retention, that this was not democracy in action? Mr. Gaughan does not leave everyone with a warm and fuzzy feeling as well.

[4248]

He also sent a letter of apology to Eddie Ryan's owner stating his position isn't really that out of the ordinary.

Does the link take you to the letter 4248?

If it doesn't I could try and put that letter on the site.

Please do. Lets read it.
Thanks or just point me in the right direction - I'll post it.

[4248]

[quote=Lee Chowaniec;623103]Hey 4248, please explain the following:

I may be naive at times so I have to ask why you made the statement that "Gaughan was under the influence of the 'controlling' party at his Eddie Ryan visit when presenting his dog and pony show?"

where and when did I say/post that????????


In many Towns, as listed in the other letter they meet in restaurants - why not?

As was stated by Mr.Gaughan before and after the meeting he expected a smaller turnout.

Lee, does this mean that you believe the owner has the right to control conversation of patrons, or limit its content?????


I am sure, you have also seen over the last thirty years - "Studies don't guarantee results" - but usually guarantee the justifications wanted by those who "Hire" those who conduct the study - especially in Lancaster Politics.

As was and still is obvious to most people, the controlling party got wind of this in advance. How else or why else was the owner told in advance, "WE will boycott your restaurant if the meeting is held here."

Please, are you for one second, with honesty trying to say the Restaurant Owner and Some Town Employees didn't "Politically" influence the actions taken that night????????????

I think your grasping at straws.


I believe Mr.Gaughan's statement concerning a "Study" while premature, was based on the facts he was given - funds for the study have been applied for and the Village has been actively "Studying and promoting" the idea of downsizing and consolidation/dissolution.

I also believe the fact that a School Board Member/County Admin/ Lancaster Dem.Party big shot and his friends were there - mixed in with Pre-meeting rumors of job loss and FF's being reduced - workers being not carried over into the Town - set Mr.Gaughan up for his first "True Taste of Vintage Lancaster Democratic Control"

Why your trying to avoid that fact, I believe is because you your self have strong reservations about Mr.Gaughan - not the need for reduction of Government.

Thats my opinion.

[4248]

He also sent a letter of apology to Eddie Ryan's owner stating his position isn't really that out of the ordinary.

Does the link take you to the letter 4248? http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...944#post623944

If it doesn't I could try and put that letter on the site.

Theres the link to the letter you incorrectly refered to. I don't know why you would misrepresent it but, maybe you just misread it. For anyone else who wants to read Mr.Gaughans letter to Eddie Ryan - click the link above.

Thanks

[gshowell]

Gaughan claims to have made reservations for five or six people. Then he sent out, who knows how many, emails, and by my count, there were 29 people there.

Those who attended the meeting will testify there was no "unfortunate atmosphere of tension". One element of an "atmosphere of tension" is argument. There were no arguments. People asked questions that Gaughan didn't expect and couldn't answer. But there was no tension in the room.

I listened to the tape recording of the meeting. Ed Church told Gaughan that he didn't make arrangements to hold a public meeting in his restaurant. If you read Gaughan's letter, it sounds more like he made reservations for "dinner", than reservations for a public meeting.

I have to re-ask Lee's question. If Gaughan has 360 to 400 volunteers in Lancaster, how come he couldn't find just one to hold the meeting in their home. At the meeting, Gaughan passed out a slinger saying he has 400 volunteers in Lancaster.

The majority of the people who were at the meeting "WERE NOT" village, town, or government employees. (I counted two D.P.W. employees and one fireman, and one County employee.)

Some of the unexpected questions came from people who do not hold government jobs. Some did come from people with government jobs. One of the people who asked questions is a county employee.

No one from V.O.T.E. threatened to Boycott Ed Church's restaurant. (I'm still trying to find out who made the threats. V.O.T.E. does not endorse that type of behavior. Whoever made those threats owes Ed Church, Kevin Gaughan, and the entire community an apology.)

To avoid a controversial confrontation, we asked V.O.T.E. members not to go to the meeting, with one exception, me. My job was to go, listen, take notes, and report back. A few members of V.O.T.E. did go. (After all, you can't tell people they can't attend a supposedly "Public Meeting.)

I didn't ask any questions. I did make a comment on the increase in taxes that accompanied the police merger.

[4248]

Please Mr.Howell,

You don't have to try and justify your group by bashing the messenger! We live in Lancaster, we have all experienced the contrived events. The negative receptions - don't stoop to the Dems level. Prove your anti-dissolution/consolidation ideas with facts and let the voters decide.

• Rumors preceded the meeting, well placed rumors.
• Do you support free speech/and freedom of assembly?
• Does your group support restrictions on free speech in a public restaurant?

Also remember this - if you support that Mr.Gaughan shouldn't have held his gathering there - you should not have been there - those who spoke should not have and no one should have been able to discuss anything other than what the bar owner agreed to.

And if you truly believe it should not have been held there - everything else relating to that nights discussion is void.

Gaughan claims to have made reservations for five or six people. Then he sent out, who knows how many, emails, and by my count, there were 29 people there.

Those who attended the meeting will testify there was no "unfortunate atmosphere of tension". One element of an "atmosphere of tension" is argument. There were no arguments. People asked questions that Gaughan didn't expect and couldn't answer. But there was no tension in the room.

I listened to the tape recording of the meeting. Ed Church told Gaughan that he didn't make arrangements to hold a public meeting in his restaurant. If you read Gaughan's letter, it sounds more like he made reservations for "dinner", than reservations for a public meeting.

I have to re-ask Lee's question. If Gaughan has 360 to 400 volunteers in Lancaster, how come he couldn't find just one to hold the meeting in their home. At the meeting, Gaughan passed out a slinger saying he has 400 volunteers in Lancaster.

The majority of the people who were at the meeting "WERE NOT" village, town, or government employees. (I counted two D.P.W. employees and one fireman, and one County employee.)

Some of the unexpected questions came from people who do not hold government jobs. Some did come from people with government jobs. One of the people who asked questions is a county employee.

No one from V.O.T.E. threatened to Boycott Ed Church's restaurant. (I'm still trying to find out who made the threats. V.O.T.E. does not endorse that type of behavior. Whoever made those threats owes Ed Church, Kevin Gaughan, and the entire community an apology.)

To avoid a controversial confrontation, we asked V.O.T.E. members not to go to the meeting, with one exception, me. My job was to go, listen, take notes, and report back. A few members of V.O.T.E. did go. (After all, you can't tell people they can't attend a supposedly "Public Meeting.)

I didn't ask any questions. I did make a comment on the increase in taxes that accompanied the police merger.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Hey 4248,

We differ on some points reagrading the Gaughan visit to Eddie Ryans by a large margin. They are:

Mr. Ryan did not prevent Gaughan from speaking in his restaurant nor did he direct his presentation in any way. In fact, he allowed him to use a portion of his dining area to conduct his presentation where this made the event even more public; where even people sitting at the bar could see and hear what was taking place.

Mr. Gaughan did send correspondance to several individuals who in turn made the meeting known to people like me who attended. I did attend to hear first hand of the petition process and to hear of the dissolution process and ask questions on whether the town would be held harmless - which is not the case in some dissolutions and was not true of the police merger and with the continuing police building fiasco.

You know I am damn well in favor of reducing government. That does not mean I will blindly follow Gaughan along his dissolution crusade where he doesn't live in a village, can't explain a 'Plan' that he has that gives good cause for dissolution and skews data and facts to sell his program.

He misstated that tha Village of Lancaster was in the process of doing a cost/benefit analysis study. Misstated is a kind word here sir.

And yes, I have reservations about Gaughan when he did not attempt to put a petition drive to downsize Town of Lancaster government from three to five members. He was scared off as you put it. The villages of Lancaster and Depew downsized from 7 members to 5, on their own, and he claimed success for this.

Why doesn't he petition to have the town and villages reduce government size on their town/village/planning and zoning boards; a grand total of over 50political patronage jobs for a population somewhere around 45,000?

And most importantly, there were but a few village employees present and had every right to worry about their job status with dissolution. And when they brought their concern forward, what did Gaughan tell them? Gee, I never heard of anyone losing their jobs in the process. How disingenuous can that be coming for a man who supposed to have all the answers on what makes a dissolution successful.

And yes 4248, it is up to village residents to determine what they want in services and what they are willing to pay. I was there as a town resident asking how town residents would be impacted. My questions and concerns went unanswered.

Like Mr. Howell, I attended the meeting and listened to the recording I made. I am not getting my information second hand.

[4248]

Hey 4248,

We differ on some points regrading the Gaughan visit to Eddie Ryans by a large margin. They are:

Mr. Ryan did not prevent Gaughan from speaking in his restaurant nor did he direct his presentation in any way.
No he didn't stop Mr.Gaughan, after he told him he didn't want it there, and that people threatened to boycott the restaurant if it was allowed.


In fact, he allowed him to use a portion of his dining area to conduct his presentation where this made the event even more public; where even people sitting at the bar could see and hear what was taking place.
Cool!

Mr. Gaughan did send correspondance to several individuals who in turn made the meeting known to people like me who attended.
By the same token, people from the area were fed rumors of unsubstantiated job loss and fire department reductions should this be sent to a vote. Thereby also using or manipulating yet unproven issues. Isn't "Reduction of size and cost of Government" the prime issue?


I did attend to hear first hand of the petition process and to hear of the dissolution process and ask questions on whether the town would be held harmless - which is not the case in some dissolutions and was not true of the police merger and with the continuing police building fiasco.
Mr.Gaughan wasn't involved with the Police Merger or the ColeCraft misadventure so why should you throw that in???? Is that any part of dissolution/consolidation as he is presenting it???? I don't believe it is - apples and oranges.

You know I am damn well in favor of reducing government. That does not mean I will blindly follow Gaughan along his dissolution crusade where he doesn't live in a village, can't explain a 'Plan' that he has that gives good cause for dissolution and skews data and facts to sell his program.
I don't believe you follow anyone "Blindly" Sir. But I do believe people can be blinded by their past encounters with other Town Officials - I do believe our frustrations with one situation can roll over into another.

He misstated that tha Village of Lancaster was in the process of doing a cost/benefit analysis study. Misstated is a kind word here sir. He repeated what he was lead to believe was true - unlike our Town Leaders who out right lie to hide their true actions.

And yes, I have reservations about Gaughan when he did not attempt to put a petition drive to downsize Town of Lancaster government from three to five members. He was scared off as you put it. The villages of Lancaster and Depew downsized from 7 members to 5, on their own, and he claimed success for this.
Sir, you had issues with Mr.Gaughn well before this meeting and I believe you brought them in with you and so did Mr.Howell.

Why doesn't he petition to have the town and villages reduce government size on their town/village/planning and zoning boards; a grand total of over 50political patronage jobs for a population somewhere around 45,000?
He spoke on that about a year ago - at Town Hall and again was practically ran out of Town - why should he stand and do battle with opponents - put it up for a vote. You also commented negatively then as well - at least your consistent!

And most importantly, there were but a few village employees present and had every right to worry about their job status with dissolution. And when they brought their concern forward, what did Gaughan tell them? Gee, I never heard of anyone losing their jobs in the process. How disingenuous can that be coming for a man who supposed to have all the answers on what makes a dissolution successful.
FACT. The employment results are not his (Mr.Gaughans) decisions to make. When it comes to jobs - If, and I believe they will - the Town Board and "Party Faithful" get done manipulating things - some jobs may get lost - it will be their doing , not Mr.Gaughan.

And yes 4248, it is up to village residents to determine what they want in services and what they are willing to pay. I was there as a town resident asking how town residents would be impacted. My questions and concerns went unanswered.
Again, those questions can only be answered by those who will ultimately control the Towns Government - ask them where they stand - ask Mr.Giza what will he and the "Sons of Patronage" do!

Like Mr. Howell, I attended the meeting and listened to the recording I made. I am not getting my information second hand.

Mr.Howell attended as a member of "No Dissolution" - face facts - you attended much for the same reason - to look for wholes.
Have you or he presented "Un skewed data and facts to sell your position?". You haven't proved your case - so you merely rip apart the one who's trying to present an option.

You said why doesn't Mr.Gaughan go after the Town - why don't you and Mr.Howells group get the information from the States Attorney Generals website, form a group, circulate petitions and lets do it????????

State your case - let him do what he's doing and let the Voters decide (if they can get past the Lan.Dems)!

[4248]

Look, I personally have great respect for all involved here. I mean no disrespect - or make no accusations as to why we do as we do.

With all due respect, and I truly didn't mean to insult anyone -

Lets agree, that we disagree and move onto the actual issue!

Thanks