The upside of government downsizing

Article Photos

Would smaller municipal boards in Chautauqua County be less costly and more efficient for area taxpayers?

Kevin Gaughan, an advocate for government reform in Western New York, claims eliminating two seats from every village, town and city board would make local government less stagnant, less expensive, and more taxpayer-driven ... and he has the research data to prove it. Although regionalism remains a long-term prospect, Gaughan is currently involved in a two-year campaign to reduce the size of municipal boards throughout Erie County.

"We all know that here in Upstate New York we have a lot of government, and disproportionately too large," he said in a phone interview Thursday.

Approximately two years ago, Gaughan embarked on a study assisted by the University at Buffalo law students in which they moved into each municipality encompassed by Erie County and obtained information regarding the number of elected public officials and the cost to support such positions for each. For the past eight months, Gaughan has made a tour of those respective municipal board meetings to present the results of his study and request public officials consider reducing their boards by two seats through attrition.

Though it may be too difficult to merge towns and villages, Gaughan said he felt he had developed a plausible and practical solution. In fact, he claimed his research revealed villages, towns and cities were never intended by our founding fathers to consist of more than three seats: a mayor or supervisor and two trustee or council members.

"Whatever it is that we're doing here in Western New York, it's not working and when something's not working you try something else," he said. "And in my research, I found it's very, very difficult to find communities around America the size of (Collins) that has more than three people governing it, and we consistently have five and seven."

Why exactly though should local public officials take steps to reduce the size municipal boards?

According to Gaughan, there would be a huge cost-benefit to the local community. A reduction in the number of elected public officials would cut down on salaries and other forms of compensation, such as health benefits, offered to board members which taxpayers can no longer afford and yet continue to fund.

"There is an immense cost-savings which would be put back into the local economy," he said.

Despite being the one area of the nation not benefitting from five economic resurgences to have swept America since 1990, Gaughan said, Upstate New York maintains one of the most multi-layered and cumbersome governments, supporting a vast number of unnecessary public officials.

He claimed the reason our region wasn't impacted by past resurgences is because it's too expensive to live here due to high property taxes. However, he said reducing the size of municipal boards would in turn reduce taxes, making it less expensive to live here and, ultimately, attract more businesses and industry to the area.

Of equal importance, he said, reducing the size of municipal boards would spark positive change in communities burdened by a declining economy. Gaughan felt it's been so long since any reform has taken place in local government that constituents have lost interest in their community.

"In the course of reducing (the size of municipal boards), I'm trying to retore a sense of opportunity in people's minds, which I think is healthy," he said.

This fact is evident in the low, often nonexistent, attendance at many local municipal board meetings.

In addition, reform such as he proposed, would improve efficiency and get local government back on track, Gaughan claimed.

Through his research, he said he discovered that municipal boards, in many communities, deal with issues usually reserved for superintendents and committees, thereby becoming bogged down in trivial matters and sometimes failing to address critical matters. As proof, he cited hour-long debates on whether to purchase a wheelbarrow or discussions revolving around the details of a local parade, generally the responsibility of department heads and citizens themselves.

Therefore, reducing the size of municipal boards would provide less time for public officials to over-govern, forcing politicians to address only true government matters and allow residents to have a more direct and active interest in their community.

"The (municipal) board sticks its nose in a lot of matters to justify its existence," Gaughan said. "So, in other words, by reducing the number of politicians, it's an opportunity for citizens to re-engage ... It's a way to re-engage citizens and give them a more equitable stake in their community, and I think that's much more healthy, more American."

In this way, less public officials would not mean decreased representation - Gaughan claims there are too many as is and most boards ultimately vote unanimously anyway - since citizens would play a larger role in the operation of their community and government.

Having a municipal board which consisted of three members rather than five or seven would also excise public officials who ran merely to fill seats on the board, an issue more prevalent in smaller villages and towns.

Presently, the town of Lancaster already voted to downsize and the village of North Collins plans to dissolve. In addition, following a request by residents to downsize, the town of West Seneca and its constituency are currently in a legal conflict over the potential reduction of the size of the town board.

"I think this is the greatest community in America," Gaughan said. "There's no place like us. There's no better place to raise a family, and we're dying and, as a matter of fact, the rate at which we're dying is accelerating."

For background information on the study performed by Gaughan, or for information on the data generated for Erie County's 16 villages, 25 towns and three cities, visit www.thecost.org.

Comments on this article can be sent to jcuthbert@observertoday.com