Think It Through Went It Comes To Downsizing

Before I begin let me state that I am 100% of the belief that we have too much government in Western New York and in New York State. It seems you cannot turn around without tripping over an elected official. I am also for a well thought out approach to this downsizing frenzy that civic activist Kevin Gaughn has created.

To Mr. Gaughan's credit, he is absolutely right. There is too much governement, it is costing the taxpayers too much, it is gettin gin the way of real progress. The problem with Mr. Gaughan's theory is that he is attacking the wrong end of the pyramid. A smart man, Gaughan knows that it is the only way that his plan will gain any momentum. There is little chance that the well-paid public servants at the top of the government food chain will vote themselves out and the voters know well enough that ther is little we can do about it. So, Gaughan is presenting his ideas in a place where success is likely, even at the cost of common sense. It is a mission for mission's sake more than a mission for the betterment of local government.

In a Buffalo News article today, Kathryn Foster, director of UB's Regional Institute hits the nail on the head when she says, “We find three men in a room objectionable in Albany. We should think very carefully before we do that locally.”

Three person boards are not functional forms of government. Once the board reaches that level, perhaps it is time to dissolve the government all together. Three person boards will fall victim to personality conflicts easier. Three person boards can be more easily swayed by special interests. Three person boards are easily disrupted by illness or other absences.

Last year the Village of Lancaster voted to downsize from 7 to 5 and this is an excellent example of a board doing the right thing. A board of five is a good size for a small town or village government. It allows for differing opinons, discussions, and representative government and yet protects against too few people being able to push through an unwanted agenda or being swayed by special interests. On a board of three, a trustee with an idea only has to convince one other official to vote for something. That is less compromise and less promises that have to be made, making it easier to achieve.

If Mr. Gaughan was truly interested in making his plan have substance instead of just shine, he would be pushing to downsize mid and upper level government. There is no real need for a bicameral house in New York State. A single legislative body would save taxpayers significantly more money than a few low level, part time local board seats. In the last election cycle it was reported that the total cost of running Senator Dale Volker's office was near $1million. There are 62 Senators currently serving in the NY Senate. Dissolve the Senate and you are talking some serious savings to taxpayers. Significantly more than the 2 $9000 trustee jobs eliminated by Lancaster.

County government is another place that this savings could be realized. I personally believe that the county government should stay and all of the towns and villages should go, however I understand the other side of the argument. I also feel from my conversations that more people would be in favor of losing the county government over the local government. In recent years, county government has been so dysfunctional that perhaps it is damaged beyond repair and should be the entity on the chopping block.

Kevin Gaughan and I agree on the idea that there is too much government in Western New York. We even agree that downsizing is a viable option for correcting this, but if you are going to slay dragons, you should seek the larger, more terrifying ones when you are looking to create a more comfortable society.