Why Did Council Member Jane Woodward Abandon Her Interigty Again?

[WNYresident]

Right from amhersttimes.com

WHY DID COUNCIL MEMBER JANE WOODWARD ABANDON HER INTERIGTY AGAIN?
By James *******
Aug 3, 2005, 00:58

At last Monday night’s Town Board meeting, 8/1/’05, Jane Woodward cast the deciding vote against allowing the public to learn about the lighting company named CLS, which stands for Custom Lighting Services. Jane brought this company to the Town Board’s attention to replace Niagara Mohawk as our lighting supplier. Council members Kindel, Ward and Schratz voted to place a referendum on the November ballet for the people to choose if they want to switch to a new company. They also wanted the public to have the right to ask questions of the Board about this company called CLS.

Amherst must bond $12,000,000 for an initial payment to CLS. Our bond attorney said we cannot do this but Jane Woodward said she will find a way to bond it. Why is Jane Woodward fighting so hard to get CLS to be our new lighting vendor?

This company made a large donation to Jane’s campaign fund for the upcoming election. Jane Woodward knows this is ethically wrong but the drive to win the upcoming election may have caused her to abandon her honesty and integrity. Jane filed her disclosure statement with the Board of Elections on July 15, 2005. The donation from CLS is listed on her sheet.

It is time Supervisor Grelick inform Jane Woodward that she won’t to be allowed to vote on any matter concerning CLS.

So do people think the community should have a say in who handles the lighting in Amherst?

Does anyone know of CLS?

How large of a donation was it?

What does it cost amherst residents now versus with CLS. Did anyone do the math?

Jim? Can you pull up some facts?

[NOTHING TO DO]

Anything that JT pulls up is always in doubt. He has stated some facts in the past that no one can verify. Asking him to check on Jane is foolish. If this great news and the Buffalo news will do
an article than maybe we can ask more ?? But no of JT

[left wing]

This whole issue has been written about in the Buffalo News over several months. You can look up the articles.

I do not have "facts" - sorry - But what I understand is that this company operates in otherstates and they have been happy with the reduced cost. They did produce figures showing how they would save the Town a considerable amount of money. This project was initiated because over the years, Niagara Mohawk has not been replacing lights, etc., as they are supposed to, resulting in many complaints from residents. Jane Woodward worked with this company over the past year to make sure this would save the Town money. She is one Board member who does her homework. Niagara Mohawk was aware of this and didn't do anything until it looked like it might happen. Then they started screaming. They have taken municipalities for granted.

Why would the taxpayers care who has the lighting contract as long as they save money? Everything should not be sent to a referendum. Shelly wants to slow it down because she does not want Jane to have a successful cost-saving to point to.

[absolivious]

Originally posted by left wing
...Shelly wants to slow it down...

Boy, it sure looks like it's everyone for himself this year, on the Amherst Republican ticket.

I'm standing back.

Any of you seen a smidgen of evidence of "slate solidariity" among the town GOPs yet?

[WNYresident]

Why would the taxpayers care who has the lighting contract as long as they save money?

Because most of the time the things politicians tell the tax payer will save them money doesn't.

[absolivious]

Originally posted by NOTHING TO DO
Anything that JT pulls up is always in doubt. He has stated some facts in the past that no one can verify. ....

I can't argue with that statement; but look out!
If nothing else, he could come up dead-nuts-on with respect to his inflammatory sewer plant/engineering dept drivel. JT's ear-to-the-ground is pretty reliable in that realm.

Scoop for lazy jounalists:
Unless Hevesi's crew finds something substantial first, the local "criminal investigation" will quietly be suspended (indefinitely) right around election day.

[WNYresident]

Is that because Clark wants the party endorsement so he'll let things slide some? Doesn't that make for a BAD DA?

[forreason]

My own opinion is that it makes no difference if you obtain money from a developer or some special interest group (i.e.: evironmentalist, homeowners assoc., police union, etc.). It tends to focus your decision making process on those that support you. You will have individuals arguing on both sides of this issue.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by left wing
This whole issue has been written about in the Buffalo News over several months. You can look up the articles.

I do not have "facts" - sorry - But what I understand is that this company operates in otherstates and they have been happy with the reduced cost. They did produce figures showing how they would save the Town a considerable amount of money. This project was initiated because over the years, Niagara Mohawk has not been replacing lights, etc., as they are supposed to, resulting in many complaints from residents. Jane Woodward worked with this company over the past year to make sure this would save the Town money. She is one Board member who does her homework. Niagara Mohawk was aware of this and didn't do anything until it looked like it might happen. Then they started screaming. They have taken municipalities for granted.

Why would the taxpayers care who has the lighting contract as long as they save money? Everything should not be sent to a referendum. Shelly wants to slow it down because she does not want Jane to have a successful cost-saving to point to.

I knew a fellow once who rented an apartment for $725 or so a month including utilities. A neighbor moved in and got the same apartment for $675 a month. My aquaintance got really upset.
The new neighbor told him he was getting screwed.

After checkng he found out that his rent included heat. The following winter the neighbor was paying $100 to $130 a month extra in heating bills.

That's why on the surface what looks to be saving money, just may not save you a dime.

Having a referendum hurts nothing. Why would you be afraid of a public vote on the matter?

[left wing]

I am not afraid of a public vote on the matter - well, perhaps that isn't entirely accurate. What worries me about a public vote are the following:

1. This has already been covered a good deal in ther press. What more are the public likely to learn? Interested people are already free to ask more questions at Town Board meetings but I haven't heard any.

2. This is an election year. Forgive me, but I deeply suspect the motives of the Town Board members recommending a referendum. This could turn into a circus and the real benefit (or not) would easily be lost in the political fray. There has not been a public outcry against this idea which suggests to me that the public is not concerned. The people proposing the referendum are politicians with an ax to grind.

3. It is budget time. This idea has been out there all year. If implemented now, the savings can be integrated into next year's budget. It is almost too late for a referendum this year. Which measn delaying any savings until 2007.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by left wing
I am not afraid of a public vote on the matter - well, perhaps that isn't entirely accurate. What worries me about a public vote are the following:

1. This has already been covered a good deal in ther press. What more are the public likely to learn? Interested people are already free to ask more questions at Town Board meetings but I haven't heard any.

2. This is an election year. Forgive me, but I deeply suspect the motives of the Town Board members recommending a referendum. This could turn into a circus and the real benefit (or not) would easily be lost in the political fray. There has not been a public outcry against this idea which suggests to me that the public is not concerned. The people proposing the referendum are politicians with an ax to grind.

3. It is budget time. This idea has been out there all year. If implemented now, the savings can be integrated into next year's budget. It is almost too late for a referendum this year. Which measn delaying any savings until 2007.

OK, so the referendum could take place next year.

Why is that a problem?

Even if the savings were $1,000,000 a year that comes out to only $10 for every man, woman and child in the town of Amherst. I think waiting for $10 is not going to make or break any taxpayer.

Besides, if the idea is as good as you say, the voters would support it wouldn't they?

Support the referendum idea.

[left wing]

It's not the number of people in the Town, it's the number of tax-paying households - which is roughly 45,000. That makes it a savings of about $22 per household. I have heard taxpayers scream about a lot less (see if they have to raise taxes this year by a few dollars ...) Plus, $1,000,000 is more than the budgets of quite a few Town department's annual budgets (personnel, planning, Town Clerk, MUSEUM, IT, Finance, Assessor...)

I do not think it would make a difference - which is why I think it is a waste of time. Plus, there is my point about it being political.
This is exactly why government costs so much. In the private sector, this would be a no brainer. But in government, everybody hassles about everything. A LOT of money is wasted that way. People get penny-wise and pound-foolish.

[mikewrona]

Originally posted by left wing
It's not the number of people in the Town, it's the number of tax-paying households - which is roughly 45,000. That makes it a savings of about $22 per household. I have heard taxpayers scream about a lot less (see if they have to raise taxes this year by a few dollars ...) Plus, $1,000,000 is more than the budgets of quite a few Town department's annual budgets (personnel, planning, Town Clerk, MUSEUM, IT, Finance, Assessor...)

I do not think it would make a difference - which is why I think it is a waste of time. Plus, there is my point about it being political.
This is exactly why government costs so much. In the private sector, this would be a no brainer. But in government, everybody hassles about everything. A LOT of money is wasted that way. People get penny-wise and pound-foolish.

So you would deny the people a voice. That's not a left-wing position.

Every resident in the town pays property taxes. The homeowner pays it directly. The renter pays it indirectly because the landlord passes the tax on to the renter in rent increases. And this is interesting. Taxes go up rent goes up. Taxes go down, rent stays up. The renter has a bigger burden than the homeowner.

Because of the realities of property taxation, it remains that a $1,000,000 a year tax saving is roughly $10 per man, woman and child in town. Even if your $22 is correct that still only equals a savings of about $0.40 per week.

Do you know who would own the poles, lines and equipment, and who would be responsible for paying those maintenance and repair costs?

Let's have that referendum.

[left wing]

I did not say deny the people a vote. Personally, I don't think it is worth it. If you want a referendum on everything that comes along, nothing will ever happen. This is why your friend Dan Ward never gets anywhere with anything. There is a difference between being left wing and being dogmatic about it - which I most certainly am not.

Your very lack of knowledge about this issue is why a referendum is pointless. It has been in the paper on at least 2 occasions that the Town will purchase the equipment, poles, etc. They have calculated the expense of maintenance, etc., and concluded that it is cheaper for the Town to do in the long run. There is an upfront expense for this purchase but that has been factored in.

If you - someone who was planning to run for office - didn't know about this issue, I cannot imagine that the average voter will educate him/herself about it prior to a referendum.

I feel we elect these people to make these decisions and hire good department heads to provide expertise to assist them,. I know it doesn't always work out - politics intervenes. But, we are long past the days of holding Town meetings to decide everything that goes on.

[Mike M]

Originally posted by forreason
My own opinion is that it makes no difference if you obtain money from a developer or some special interest group (i.e.: evironmentalist, homeowners assoc., police union, etc.). It tends to focus your decision making process on those that support you. You will have individuals arguing on both sides of this issue.

You see no difference between a developer* contributing substantial sums of money to a candidate and an average citizen** contibuting a few bucks that they can spare? Really?!?!?!? ... Rally?!?!?!? No difference?

Wow!



*=That most likely has a pre-planned intention of looking for votes on specific issues.

**=That most likely will not need direct benefit from any Town Board member ever.