Winter provided ample opportunity to determine our goals for this year.  I spent it researching Albany downsizing, local government merger, and school district consolidation; and most important, listening to many of you on what our next steps should be.  In the coming weeks, we’ll use the work of winter to achieve a spring of change.

In the meantime, I thought you might like to see this poll of New Yorkers’ views on government consolidation and downsizing. It was published yesterday by Marist College, under the auspices of The Dyson Foundation.

The poll’s most significant finding is that a majority of state residents want their local government to consolidate. And perhaps most satisfying, the poll that finds that Western New York leads the way in support for reducing government size and cost.

It appears that our work to both educate citizens on the benefits of reform, and give them a voice in downsizing votes, has made a difference.  Our challenge now is not only to continue to make a difference, but to make it better.

Since our historic achievements last November - downsizing the Erie County Legislature and the Town of Amherst - I have furthered my research on local government structure, spoken with reform experts throughout the nation, and tracked Western New York’s continued decrease in people and jobs, and increase in taxes.

I spent many weeks re-thinking village reform, the law that governs citizens’ efforts to reduce overlapping governments, and the many lessons learned from our experience last year.  I’ve continued my research on the cost, functions, and duties of Erie County government.  And I’ve educated myself on the history, composition, and cost of the New York State legislature.

All in an effort to craft new ideas with which to greet the challenges of the New Year.

As we continue working to reduce the number of politicians and increase citizens’ voice, please know that we shall always be driven by our overarching goal: to create a government that serves its people, not itself, so together we can build a successful and sustainable Western New York.

Someday, perhaps, our collective efforts to create a functioning, sustainable Western New York will come to pass.  But it appears that first we’ll have to get around the machinations of politicians and their protectors.

Because the board of elections appealed the State Supreme Court’s ruling restoring the downsizing measure to the November 2^nd ballot, this morning my lawsuit goes before the appellate division of the court.  I’m appearing before the Rochester court along with my co-counsel, Tim LoVallo.  Tim had to spend the better part of last week with me preparing our court brief; so he’s guaranteed his place in Heaven.

In our court documents, we’ve strived to give the appellate court ample reasoning why voters’ voice should be heard.  If the court possesses any inclination to serve the peoples’ will, case law and state statutes give it strong basis on which to let this vote proceed.  But as any experienced litigation attorney will advise, you never know what will happen in a court of law.

Kindly know, though, that if the appellate court removes the proposition from the ballot, it will merely delay the people’s right to decide, not deny it.  In my efforts to reduce the size and cost of village, town, county, and state government, I’m still just warming to the task.  And our movement shall not rest until the functional, sustainable, and prosperous community to which we all aspire, comes to pass for every Western New Yorker.

But after two straight, long days in a courtroom, listening to squabbles about who delivered what document to whom, and which clerk is the right clerk, for the life of me I can’t remember why I liked that show.

Both days I spent in court, trying my lawsuit to let Erie County residents decide if they want to downsize county government, I stole away a few moments to peek in adjacent courtrooms to see what cases were being heard.  In one, an elderly African-American couple – the husband’s 90-something, wheelchair-bound mother in tow – were trying to keep the helpless woman in a proper care facility.  In another court, a battered wife sought protection from her violent husband.

And there we were, in Part 35 of New York State Supreme Court, me and a gaggle of local government officials, arguing whether the right clerk walked the right document over to the right office.  All because two county officials wanted to deny voters their voice.

Today at 3:00 pm, the court will render its decision.  I regret that the elections board’s effort to keep the downsizing proposition off the ballot forced me to bring a legal action. But I take pride in doing everything I can to see that a county government downsizing measure reaches voters now.

Our counsel, Tim LoVallo, performed brilliantly in court, and offered a strong legal hook on which the court can hang its hat in siding with the peoples’ right to decide.  I hope the court sees the wisdom in this fundamental right – a right on which our citizens’ movement is based.

And I’m grateful as well to each of the local elected officials who joined my lawsuit.  Their participation lent additional weight and influence.  Though I must say that it was a new experience for me in my reform work to look over my shoulder and see a gaggle of pols standing in support. It was good for the cause, and I hope it continues as we move onto our effort to downsize the Ne York State legislature.

Lost in the drama of the lawsuit and, I suspect, lost on the two elections commissioners who caused this unnecessary legal battle, is this harsh reality: even before the elections commissioners placed yet another obstacle in the path to public referenda, New York already was the most regressive state in the nation in permitting citizens to vote directly on ballot initiatives.  Had they paused to think about our state’s already harmful reputation as a denier of citizens’ voting rights, would the two commissioners have perhaps passed on making this already shameful situation a shameless one as well?

Working with our Grand Island Team has been an immense privilege.  Captain Don Keller led us last spring through the long road of signature gathering; Dan Drexelius guided us into the town’s heart and soul; Jeff Eberhard gave up too many evenings and Saturdfay mornings with his children. Marty Remmes left his work behind to pitch in; Dan Robillard added his insight and experience; Don Chonka and his beautiful bride rendered kindness and kindred spirit, John Bianco and John and Ray Sobieski joined the band with great enthusiasm; all our Let People Decide veterans who lent a hand in exchange for community grace: Cathy Snyder (no one worked more diligently), June Kreutzer, Bob and Marti Wohlegumuth, Merrill Trefzer, Nick Hanes, Wally Piotrowski, Terry MacKinnon, and Jim Lawson, and all the other members of our brilliant Grand Island corps.

Through it all, Lynn Bochenek, as always, kept us organized, and Jennifer Keller kept us fed, informed, and on the move while simultaneously shepherdingg two sons through the end of one school year, the activities of summer, and the beginning of another school year.

Because of all these folks’ kindness, grace, and devotion to community, the interests of Grand Island and all of Western New York have been enriched and advanced.

And to have played a small role in all of this, yet again, makes me the luckiest guy alive.

The Grand Island town board has been kind enough to debate me at these forums, sending two different board members to each session.  Anytime I can debate more than one politician at a time, I like my odds.  On some evenings, though, I feel like I should welcome the “new shift.”

Notwithstanding their tag-team approach, the Grand Island town board is to be commended for standing up for what they believe.  In several previous towns, local officials refused to engage in open debate, preferring to have party bosses, academic representatives, or town employees defend the present system.

Grand Island officials have a difficult task convincing residents that Western New York’s gaggle of elected officials – the highest concentration of politicians in America – should remain while our population and jobs leave.  But in attempting the argument, Supervisor Pete McMahon, and council members Mary Cooke, Richard Crawford, Gary Roesch, and Ray Billica have demonstrated the courage of their convictions.

I’m grateful as well for the kindness of the thousands of residents in Sloan and Williamsville who graciously permitted me into their home these past months.  The conversation, debate, and laughter we shared have enriched my life.  And in all those discussions – standing on driveways or sitting at kitchen tables – I learned much more than I could have ever hoped to impart.

I think everyone who participated in this discussion – those who feel that all local governments should continue, and those who do not – approached the debate in good faith and with the same objective: how do we insure that Western New York and all its communities prosper and flourish in the new century.  I take a measure of pride in playing a small role in causing this conversation, and believe that no matter what happens in the coming votes, nothing but good comes from citizens discussing, learning, and weighing how we govern ourselves.

These past weeks, I offered Williamsville and Sloan residents my plan for how villages can function and flourish if voters choose to end their government.  This plan is the result of several years of research and examination of a) New York State villages that have dissolved their village government; b) villages outside New York that have never been incorporated municipalities; c) observations made while attending more than 300 town board and village board meeting these past four years; and d) thinking through the nature of civic engagement and volunteer citizenry, and their relation to local governance.

A copy of my plan is below, which I offer along with all best wishes to Williamsville and Sloan residents who, this Tuesday, shall start us on our journey of reforming village government throughout Erie County.

Whatever decision village residents make will be the right decision.

GAUGHAN PLAN

DISSOLVING VILLAGE GOVERNMENTS IN ERIE COUNTY

1.   All Villages remain a “Village”

In virtually every one of our 16 village communities, the village was founded before the village government was formed.

For example, the Village of Williamsville was founded in 1800.  The Williamsville village government was incorporated in 1850.  Thus, the Village preceded the government and shall exist after the government is dissolved.

Of the 21 communities in New York State that have dissolved their village government since 1970, 3 chose to continue being referred to as a village.

Should any village government be dissolved by public referendum, the only difference will be the addition of the word “Unincorporated” on all village signs.

2.   Village Board Continues on a Volunteer Basis

To continue having advocates who live in the village, are accessible to village residents, and who work to advance village interests with the town government, village residents will meet on a bi-annual basis to elect by voice vote a five-member volunteer  “Village Board of Advocates.”  These informally elected representatives will: a) represent village interests before the town government;

b) monitor and assess quality of services in the village; c) be the clearinghouse for village residents’ complaints and  concerns; and d) coordinate with all village volunteer committees.

3.   All Village Volunteer Committees Continue

In my research, I’ve found that that which renders village life unique is not ht work of government, but the effort of citizens.

For example, Williamsville has 14 volunteer citizen committees that devise policy and practice, and advise the government in the following areas of village life: Beautification; Zoning; Meeting House; Glen Park; Historic Preservation; Traffic and Safety; Senior Citizens; Community Emergency Response; Parks; Planning; Special Events; Mill Committee; Tree Board; and Youth and Recreation.

Each of these volunteer citizen committees will continue and, working with the Village Board of Advocates, guide and advise the town board on village matters.

The continued existence of village volunteer committees, and the considerable contribution they make to the Village life, shall insure the continuation of the Village Garden Walk, Old Home Days, annual beautification of Main Street, and other unique Village aspects and events.

4.  Any Village Community Plan Shall be Adopted by the Town

Example: the Village of Williamsville.

The Village of Williamsville Community Plan, recently adopted by the village board after substantial input and guidance from residents, sets forth village aspirations and plans for development, land use, historic preservation, and parks and recreation policies.

This plan will be formally adopted by the town, and its implementation will be overseen and directed by the Village Board of Advocates and volunteer committees.

5.  Village Water and Sewer Services

Example: the Village of Williamsville.

Sewer system consolidation negotiations among the Village of Williamsville, Town of Amherst, the Town of Clarence, and Erie County will continue and conclude with a consolidated, more efficient, and less costly system.

The Erie County Water Authority will assume water service for the Village.

6.   Village Department of Public Works

Example; the Village of Williamsville.

The Village DPW will merge with the Town Highway Department, overseen by an elected official, the Town Highway Superintendent.  Street snow removal will remain the same, and the town will establish a special district to provide sidewalk snow removal in those areas of the Village where it is now provided.

Garbage collection services will remain the same as the Village and Town are parties to the same agreement with outside contractor, Waste Management Corporation.  Metal, leaf, and brush pick up will continue, with one change: Village residents will be required to place yard waste including leaves in curbside garbage cans or bushel baskets.

The Village will transfer all historical operations and transition all local, state and federal historic designations to the Town to insure that all Village historic designations will continue under Town governance.

7.   Village Employees

Example: the Village of Williamsville.

The Village of Williamsville has 27 full and part-time employees.  All part-time employee positions, including the mayor, four village trustees, and village attorney are eliminated.

Full-time village employees in the Building Department, and Department of Public Works (approximately 17 positions) are offered either a) positions with the town, or b) employee buy-out agreements.  All positions with the town will be established in accordance with town compensation guidelines.

Upon the retirement of all former village employees from town service, their positions will be permanently eliminated.

8.   Village Codes, Zoning Laws, and Ordinances

All village codes, zoning laws and other ordinances will be retained for at least two years after village dissolution.  The town will then adopt all village codes, zoning laws and other ordinances as soon as is practical after dissolution.  Village representatives, Town representatives, and interested residents will work together to create a unified zoning code during the transition to the effective date of dissolution.  The town will also adopt special legislation creating a unique zoning district comprised of the village.

9.   Village Historic Designations

The town will adopt all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that pertain to historic preservation within the village as soon as is practical after the government dissolution vote.

10.   Village Assets and Long-Term Debt

All village assets will be transferred to the town, but will continue to be overseen by the Village Board of Advocates and Village volunteer committees.

Village debt will be capped, and possibly reduced by amount of state funds provided (see paragraph 11 below).  As they do now, village residents will continue to pay down Village debt on the same rate and schedule.

11.   New York State Funds for Dissolved Village Governments

All village boards of trustees should immediately apply for available New York State funds designed to assist newly-dissolved governments.  The Village of Seneca Falls, which this past March voted to dissolve its government, received $400,000 from the state.  These funds can be used to a) reduce village debt;

b) finance capital improvements in village water and sewer systems necessary for county assumption of service responsibilities; and c) reach financial agreements with departing Village full-time employees.

The village boards should act now to secure their place in line for all available funds.

In Farnham with Ron Pfeffer, a kind and welcoming former village historian with vast knowledge of village social and economic history, we discussed Leroy Farnham, for whom the village is named.  As we walked along his driveway, Ron expressed considerable skepticism as to whether shedding a layer of government would save taxes.  And he offered numbers and examples to support his view.

I met the most remarkable man in Sloan, Stanley Markut.  On the porch of his lovely home, where he’s lived for more than 30 years, he captivated Linda Gossett and me with the breadth of his knowledge of Sloan and its government.  Speaking in both English and Polish, and nimbly alternating between reducing property taxes and growing unique species of flowers in the garden he keeps with his wife, I had a heck of a time keeping pace with his energy and spirit.

And in Williamsville, on the doorstep of a stunning colonial home in the heart of the village, former trustee Rosemarie Sugg said that while she was at first inclined to support ending village government, since researching the matter she’s now adamantly opposed.

As reflected in these chats, we’ve already accomplished one of our goals: to cause a community-wide conversation on the nature and purpose of local government.  And while I regret that some politicians are speaking the language of fear to discourage folks from signing a petition that merely gives them their right to decide, I take pride in our work so far.

And I look forward to continuing both the conversation and the effort in the days to come.

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.

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

March 23, 2010

Mr. Ed Church
Eddie Ryan’s Restaurant
50 Central Avenue
Lancaster, NY 14086

Dear Ed,

I very much regret the confusion that took place at your wonderful restaurant the week before last, and apologize for the resulting angst it caused you and your staff.

As we discussed that night, when I called your restaurant on Tuesday, March 2, to say that I was coming in on the 10th with five or six additional folks, I did not think it necessary to describe the topic of our meeting.  I spoke with a kind woman, inquired what time the restaurant closed, and asked to confirm the correct spelling of Eddie Ryan’s, for purposes of our public e-mail.

In my experience, a restaurant does not ask groups or, for that matter, families, what subject they shall discuss over dinner or drinks, for fear that it may be one with which the restaurant disagrees.  In connection with my government reform project, I’ve held meetings in Tony Rome’s in West Seneca, Pasquale’s in Angola, Romanello’s South in Hamburg, and Alton’s in Sloan.  I did not advise the owner of any of those businesses the purpose of my gathering, and none asked.

Moreover, I’ve never before heard the assertion that a restaurant hosting a discussion of a particular topic constitutes that restaurant’s endorsement of a particular view.  Indeed, most establishments practice a policy of permitting all groups to patronize their business, and in that way demonstrate their neutral and impartial position.

As Rick, the proprietor of Rick’s Café in ‘Casablanca’ says, “I can’t afford political views, I own a saloon.”  Which is why he permitted both freedom fighters and German occupiers into his legendary spot.  And it’s a good thing he did, or he never would’ve seen Ingrid Bergman again.

Which brings me to how saddened I was by the behavior of those who, upon hearing that citizens interested in exercising their right to petition government, threatened to boycott your business.  I fully understand how unsettled you were by that regrettable behavior.  And I again apologize for my role in causing the confusion that gave rise to it.

But may I respectfully suggest that in the future, to anyone who would threaten you with boycott, rather than bow to such tactics, that you simply say, “all are welcome at Eddie Ryan’s, and if you’d like to hold a discussion on why Lancaster village residents should not be permitted to petition, you can do so here anytime.”

Perhaps then, you will witness firsthand the error of those who would suppress citizens’ rights and, like Humphrey Bogart’s Rick, in the end cast your lot with the cause of freedom.

Very truly yours,

Kevin Gaughan

Written by National Reporter, Rick Hampson, the piece is a comprehensaive look at how Kevin, our volunteers, and Western New York are leading the nation in local government reform.

Check it out and post a comment below.

Dan Gigante
Let People Decide