Village politicians circle the wagons

So I'm reading a story by Fred Williams about officials from 12 villages in Erie County gathering to denounce Kevin Gaughan's proposal that they merge with their towns, and a scene from Blazing Saddles immediately came to mind. It's the one where Governor William J. LePetomane, played by Mel Brooks, declares, in a fit:

"Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We've got to protect our phony baloney jobs, gentlemen."

OK, that's a bit harsh, I admit. But, come on, among those leading the charge against consolidation is Terry Caber, the mayor of the Village of Farnham, population 322, who is essentially arguing that his constituents would somehow suffer if the village was swallowed up by the Town of Brant, population 1,906.

Franham has 200 parcels. Heck, my street may have more properties than that.

The village has five elected officials, or one for every 80 man, woman and child. All five were re-elected this spring without opposition. But they call it democracy.

Farnham has a one-man public works department. It's got a village hall. It's got a $319,000 annual budget, plus $99,000 if you count the water district, which costs village property owners $104,000 in real estate taxes.

All this for 322 people. At least back when the 2000 Census was taken. My hunch is the number is a little lower these days.

It's not as though Brant is lacking for elected officials to look out for the folks in Farnham. Or appointed ones, for that matter.

The town elects a supervisor, four board members, two judges, a highway supervisor and a clerk. That's nine.

There's another 20 appointed officials serving on the planning board, the zoning board and the board of assessment review.

Brant has almost as many politicians (nine) as police -- a 12-man department, including the chief. No word on whether they've got a deputy chief with the first name of Barney.

Gaughan has calculated that villages in Erie County account for 9 percent of the population and 23 percent of its elected officials, whose salaries cost taxpayers $5.6 million in 2006.

(Update: Buffalo Pundit has linked to this item, and has included a hilarious YouTube clip that includes the "phony baloney jobs" scene. I'd never get away posting it on this blog, The News being a "family newspaper" and all.)

The "Blazing Saddles" reference notwithstanding, this is not a laughing matter.

Comments

[jen]

Gaughan might be better off, in this case, going directly to the people and stating his case. The people of the town could then put pressure on the officials to downsize/merge.

[BobbyCat]

Villages exist to provide benefits to a handful of workers. All the other stuff about serving the public is phoney baloney rhetoric. They are the last bastion of health and pension benefits to many locals who might not otherwise afford them.

There is a generic class of municipal workers in villages and towns that I call "WTR's" or Waiting to Retire. They might be from different political parties but they share a common, ironclad bond - do nothing to upset your health benefits or your pension. Jump from job to job if you have to, but keep padding that retirement fund.
It's the common language spoken - or rather unspoken- in local governments.

These municipal workers will fight to the end to keep their benefits rolling, public sentiment be damned.

[Don H]

Have you ever seen or heard of any politician who led the effort to eliminate his own office in government?

[StatueFighter]

What really needs to happen is an explanation of how a Village can be dissolved. It is a process that NY State allows, and there is a set process. All the physical items such as trucks, buildings, etc become property of the town. I believe they guide you on how to work with the employees, debt service, etc.
Once we, meaning the tax paying public understands how to dissolve a village then we can make the decision. We can dictate how many police are in concentrated population ares such as "village centers" If Mr. Gaughn would really like to bring this to a whole new level, educate us on this and set up work groups to get it done.

[harry]

Nobody who has a well paying job in the "system" is going to, in the least, try to figure out how to eliminate the sheer blatent redundency of overlapping, way over reasonable cost to taxpayers, services.

It is a logic that must be stopped just as fast as they took away our health benefits, retirements, jobs.
They can't sacrifice? They can't adjust? The people can seriously hurt, but THEY CAN'T!?

I've said this time and time again. UNTIL THEY FEEL THE PAINS, ANY PAIN WHATSOEVER, THEY WILL CHANGE NOTHING! NOT ONE DARN(holding back the true frustration) THING!

They are basically holding us at ransom, instead of working for us.

[James J.]

Couldn't agree more w/ the need to merge and downsize! Letting this decision rest w/ the politicians is like letting the fox guard the henhouse! Kevin Gaughan ROCKS!!!

[Catherine]

I've seen Gaughan's presentation on the cost of government, and it blew me away. The power of his facts, combined with how he discovered a law that lets voters decide, may be the combination that finally unlocks this chronic problem that's plagued upstate.

Plus, it's something to hear public officials go after Gaughan. He seems pretty tough, but politicians are relentless in protecting thier turf.

[James]

Anyone know if Gaughan began the drive to get signatures in Amherst yet? He should start with the biggest Town and go from there. Maybe if they reduce the size of the Amherst Town Board they can reduce the bickering. Although, too bad nothing can be done to set minimum qualifications because the Amherst Town board members are incompetent.

[Al]

Now this is a REAL test of local taxpayers, what they call a litmus test. If locality taxpayers can't rise to the occasion here, I say give the Supervisors and Mayors more powers, money, and largesse. Load 'em up. Fill the trough. Have a pigfest. In fact, I'll take one of those positions. Best training ground for lobbyist.
But, be sure to check your conscience at the door. The two don't equate.

[Art Klein]

Wow, this is exciting. We have an electorate of about 20% to 30% of the general population re-electing the same zombies to office for decades and a minor number of the zombies trot out their IMPORTANT role as village representatives as though they really had life.

Villages and even towns cost us taxpayers all sorts of grief and taxpayer dollars.

Having a representative at every level from Village to US Senator was okay before the telephone but currently these redundant governments cost too much money and really do nothing to increase our qulity of life.

My biggest secret dream is for Erie and Niagara County to form one single water and one single garbage district and save all of us millions of dollars.

[Debbie]

Your pointing to the Mel Brooks analogy is terrific, because local politicians have become so ripe for satire. Maybe that's one of the reasons why Kevin Gaughan is succeeding in his quest. Once people start laughing at their public servants, their careers are not long for this world.

[lanres]

Interested Voters - Vote ! Voters with interests - Vote !
- - - The majority of voters in Town or Village elections are those who have strong local "Political" interests. They are either members of the local controling party or they have friends and or relatives that benefit directly from election outcomes. _ _ _ Usualy income related - like Town or Village employment - or having buisness that benefits from local contracts - land deals - Equiptment/vehicle purchases and so on. - - - This is the "Patronage / Nepotism" systems the voters themselves condone and support. _ _ _ People sign candidates petitions not because they support the candidate , not because the understand issues , but for many other reasons , like "Well the guy collecting them will get a Job" - "he's a friend of mine so I signed it - I dont even know all the Candidates names , but I signed anyway." - _ _ my favorite is , "We have to keep our Party in control!" - - Well , now you can pay for what you wanted or retire, move and leave the mess for your grand children. But before you go , see if you can help them get a Town or Village job !

[lanres]

PS - Any Town or Village resident can start a petition drive to force a vote on the number and size of local Government - so as they say , "Just do it!"

[Mark]

Until we get to the reality that every one of these towns and villages had a fleet of vehicles and the staff to drive them and it costs us dollars every hour of every day nothing will happen. We may be getting close to turning that over. And when did every mayor or town supervisor need an SUV to drive. Years ago they just ordered a plain Diplomat, Impala, or LTD just like a detective drove. If they need to get somewhere, there is a police or fire vehicle going to the same "crisis" that probably could go get them.

[Neil]

The pictures are great, unfortunately even the GOV, Hedley, and Barney would look at most of the pols in our area and think - these people are nuts!

[Pimpslap]

If the savior Kevin gets his way, how much will that save me in taxes per year? All I care about is how much will it save not the political posturing of getting rid of elected officials! Will these "savings" go towards a different government waste? I think he should explain the savings and not just cutting govt jobs,

[Steve in Wheatfield]

Usually I don't agree with this Blog's "author", but I'm laughing about the Barney reference. Here's my thoughts from a previous post in The 'burbs blog:

Get your heads out of the sand folks. Do you really think you will be better represented by 3 bums than 5,7 or 9 bums? With 3 bums, all someone would have to do is get into the pocket of 2 of them and the whole town could go to hell. Don't think it wouldn't happen either. These goof offs don't know how to mangage a town now with each one checking up on the other. It would be worse with 3 losers and their "executive sessions".

Kevin Gaughan is feeding you his Kool-Aid so that he can shmooze his way into a high paying govermnent position at some point.

Eliminating board members isn't the answer. Cutting the amount of money they can spend on staffing is. Don't cut 2 out of 5 board members, just cut 40% of the budget.

[walter]

The utter redundency of multiple duplicate services, under multiple authorities, has PROVEN to be very ineffecient and very, very deadly.

Just look at 9\11.

Multiple "HIGH TECH", mega-budget, agencies that failed miserably, because THEY DID NOT, WOULD NOT, AND COULD NOT COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.
They ALL worked and operated in their own little sphere of what THEY thought was THEIR rights and terratory. Nobody else was going to tell them what to do and how to do it. Sharing very highly pertenant terrorist movements info WAS OUT OF THE QUESTION! They OWNED that right!
They actually WORKED AGAINST each other, in their own little secret realms.

What was the results? COMPLETE UTTER FAILURE!!

Thousands of innocents died NEEDLESSLY. This country has done nothing but get even worse off. What was their answers in "mock" investigations? They made it even MORE redundent, MORE complicated and MORE expensive. They made FEMA!
"...good job BROWNIE!"

MORE inept agencies who have proven to be more useless in a REAL EMERGENCY!

What was their answers as to why they SCREWED UP? Finger pointing to the others, excuses, and the classic answer,...."I DON'T RECALL"!!
It was FAR TOO COMPLICATED as to WHO was doing WHAT, and WHO was in charge of WHAT, and ultimatly RESPONSIBLE!

Proven FACT: Make it MORE redundent, MORE expensive, MORE complicated, and it ONLY gets worse, EVERYTIME. Only the "EXCUSES" get better.

BTW,...I still hear that their poor intercommunication problems STILL EXIST TODAY.
How can that be? For the money IT COSTS?

[AmericanAxleMyJobWenttoMexico]

Town of Brandt recieves X amount of dollars in state aid. Villiage of Farmington or whatever it is recieves Y. Eliminate village and state still sends X amount to Brandt. Lets look at the equation. X+Y is greater than X. Gaughan is just working his own agenda.