|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 11, 2008 8:00:14 GMT -5
Apparently there is a commission that is exploring options to reduce the number of county legislators. This commission is apparently seeking public input (whether it will heed to the public input remains to be seen). If you're interested in giving your input, click here and scroll down to the "public notices" section on the right. Look for "Presentation of the Appropriate Size of the Board" and go to the last page. From there, send an e-mail to the e-mail address listed on the last page. |
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 11, 2008 9:46:49 GMT -5
Frankly, I don't get it. Why would I be in favor of reducing the number of representatives in my county? Save a few bucks, sure, but then my district would get folded in with someone else's.
Am I missing something? (Not unusual.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Clipper on Jul 11, 2008 10:26:54 GMT -5
I guess I look at it from a different viewpoint. I would think that population would govern redistricting. I would also think that there would be strength in numbers with fewer districts with higher numbers of constituents in each district.
At some point we need to streamline government. If districts are small enough to be appropriately represented, and large enough to influence change at the polls when there is an important issue brought forward in the form of a referendum, I think that the mission has been successfully accomplished.
I have to believe that a smaller and more focused legislature would be a good thing. Fewer legislators, fewer chances for influence and patronage from outside sources.Less pandering and more constructive business.
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 11, 2008 15:57:41 GMT -5
Well, when you think about it, we have way too many legislators in Oneida County. The entire county population pales by comparison to Onondaga County and they manage the county just fine with 19 legislators. So why do we need 26?
And as clipper mentioned, with fewer cronies on the board, fewer handouts to friends, better chance of better accountability.
|
|
|
|
Post by clarencebunsen on Jul 12, 2008 5:54:00 GMT -5
When I lived there, Hennipen County in Minnesota (with about 50 municipalities, the largest : Minneapolis) had a total of 9 County Commissioners. We need the same number of City Councilpersons to "run" Utica.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 14, 2008 12:43:49 GMT -5
I would also think that there would be strength in numbers with fewer districts with higher numbers of constituents in each district. Clipper, that's a very good point. Of course, it can work both ways and a county legislator who represents both a small and a large community will no doubt give emphasis to the latter, leaving those in the smaller town with less representation. The examples in my mind, of course, come from my own county ... Ulster .. where I live. We have many small hamlets in the county, since people have been living here since 1610. Each town is trying to get services back from the county, having paid money up to the county in taxes. And therein lies the problem, I think. Years ago, the towns took care of their own needs and there weren't that many services expected from the county. (Remember when county workers were all in one building?) But today we pass money up and expect services to come back down and the towns have to compete among themselves for those services. (How come they're not paving OUR roads this year? How come that other town is getting more of the county sales tax revenue?) So I don't want to vote for a guy or girl who will have me and another lover. I want my own rep up there at the county level fighting like hell for my little corner of the world. If that means we have 100 legislators, so be it. I've got ... what? .... 400 senators and congressmen? And they don't do anything half as important as plow my road or sell me a driver's license.    |
|
|
|
Post by tanouryjr on Jul 14, 2008 22:50:41 GMT -5
Dave, you make a very good point and it's nice to see someone put that much thought into the situation. I actually argued that same point when first appointed to the Charter Revision Commision. I used my district as an example. I currently represent Cornhill, which is the largest minority district in the county. Of course minorities have very unique concerns and issues that need someone willing to advocate for them. Having grown up in Cornhill, I feel I know the issues and have the passion needed to fight for them.
If the legislature was reduced arbitarily, and resulted in my district including a significant portion of South Utica, this would dramatically effect how a legislator works. Although unfortunate, Cornhill voters turnout in very low numbers. So in order to win an election a candidate/legislator would need to focus most attention on the needs of the large voting precincts in South Utica. Ultimately neglecting the needs of the Cornhill area. It's basic politics101, and anyone that argues otherwise is simply dreaming.
However, I have come to the conclusion that we DO need to reduce the size of government and lead by example. I believe the issue won't be in the "reduction," but in the subsequent "re-districting" process that will be required after the 2010 census anyway. As long as all of these concerns are addressed at that point, and the re-districting process isn't done ARBITRARILY, I think we could/should reduce the size of the Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by tanouryjr on Jul 14, 2008 22:52:52 GMT -5
The perfect example of this is Ed Welsh's district. Nothing against Ed, but it includes a small part of Cornhill. 90% of the votes come from South Utica though. Therefore most of the Cornhill residents call me because they don't even know Ed.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 14, 2008 23:06:06 GMT -5
Yes, I think the redistricting is the real problem. It will most likely be done along political rather than representational lines. Not long ago, we lost a terrific county legislator from our town because of this problem. We now do obeisance to a guy in a neighboring town, hoping he will represent our interests. If our county reduces the number of lawmakers, as has been touted in the press here, the b.s. will begin all over again. It is not difficult for me to believe ... at least here in my part of the world ... that when I hear "less county lawmakers," it is because the party in power thinks they can gain a political advantage through gerrymandering disguised as "better and more efficient government." In fact, what party in power would even entertain a change in the number of lawmakers unless they felt they would derive an advantage?
|
|
|
|
Post by dan on Jul 16, 2008 14:13:52 GMT -5
The mind-numbing conclusion to this issue is that if we had less BIG government and concentrated more on LOCAL governing this problem would go away on it's own. Rather than sending money up an endless pipe and hoping that someone advocates for some of it to return (minus administration fees, of course) keep the money local and spend it locally. This unending yo-yo we've adopted as a system of funding from the bottom up is rediculous.
(present company excepted, Larry)
|
|
|
|
Post by Swimmy on Jul 17, 2008 9:08:53 GMT -5
Dave, you make some very good points, to which I have no real response. I will say that Mr. Tanoury is a Democrat. And in Oneida County, since the Board of legislators's inception, the Republicans have had a majority.
|
|
|
|
Post by dgriffin on Jul 17, 2008 10:23:25 GMT -5
Swimmy, Mr. Tanoury certainly appears forthright and I don't' doubt his sincerity. But it occurs to me that it can be a short trip from 20 legislators to 10 legislators to "three men in a room."
|
|
