Michael Hennessy: Cut Legislature by half

[dgriffin]

One problem with reducing the number of legislators is that some voters will always get left out.
Here in my county the number was reduced a couple of years ago and although it's a bit more complicated than I'll portray it, two towns (mine and the adjacent) wound up sharing a legislator. In the primaries and the succeeding election the race was between each town seeking to have their representative win. When the other town won, we felt like we were SOL, and frankly most of the time we were.
Calls to "my legislator" went unanswered when my telephone number revealed where I lived (NOT in his town.) He voted on a dump question exactly like most people in his town wanted and exactly the opposite of what the people in my town wanted.

At least in our situation, I felt that a few more legislators for the purpose of more representation was not a major cost that needed saving. There are a hell of a lot of other ways to save money at the county level compared to eliminating or reducing representation.

[JGRobinson]

Reducing without reorganization could produce what you say Dave. These districts were born out of the Buggy Whip days when it took a week or more to ride from one end of the county to the other.

They are too small and represented by too many people with personal agendas and long histories taking care of their own business. Right now, they vote for where the money comes from and where they feel most comfortable hanging their hats. Cronyism and nepotism prevail in the small world where they couldn't survive mass public scrutiny and competition in the big one!

I can drive to Albany in 2 hours, take a bus to Washington in 18, a train to CA in 2 days or less, fly to Russia in 16 hours and the moon in less than 3 days. None of these were possible even 100 years ago, the buggy whip rued the day the first 100 years of our countries existence.

We have essentially shrunk the world to less than 1/10th of its physical size with communication and transportation technology but consistently fail to reap the rewards. We are stuck in the way "We always do things" instead of trying something that will benefit our new emerging populace across the State not just regional hot-spots.

Times are changing, we must change with them. We all have many of the same needs, challenges and hopes here in CNY, we need to start representing the needs of the many not the wishes of a few small community leaders!

Leave the buggy whip at the door ('Cept Stoney of course)!!!

[firstamendment]

Consider that part time legislators get full time benefits like medical, you should expect more from your shared legislator, Dave. I don't know who you can file complaints with as to them not returning messages but there has to be someone or some agency to file a grievance and you absolutely should. It doesn't matter if they are from the neighboring town or even county, if they are the representative for YOUR legislative district, they owe each and every person the same respect and courtesy.

[dgriffin]

Well, yes. That should be true. Off topic, of course, but here's something that shouldn't be true: "...part time legislators get full time benefits like medical..." I have always resented that. The idea in the past was we elected successful people, their accomplishment indicating some level of competency to enable their governing a district. You'd think such people could afford their own health insurance. And if so, why are we expected to pay for it?

[ladyoracle]

Apr 9, 2011 20:32:01 GMT -5 firstamendment said:

There are too many legislators per capita in both Oneida and Herkimer counties. It is why nothing gets done, too many hens in the henhouse trying to rule the roost.

for comparison:

Onondaga County est 2007 pop 454K
In 2001 the legislature was reduced from 24 to 19 and then voters approved a referrendum to reduce it to 17 in 2010.
454K/19 legs=roughly 24K people represented per legislator.

Oneida County
Est population 2007 232K (slightly more than half Onondaga county.
A wopping 29 legislators!
232K/29 legs= 8000 people represented per legislator.

Herkimer County
Est population 2007 62500
17 legislators
62500/17 legs= roughly 3700 people represented per legislator.

Do you think there are too many tax eating politicians out there and not enough results?

Cripes sake, 3700 people represented per legislator in Herkimer County, might as well say every town or village's mayor IS a legislator. Sheesh!

Agree with you on this, First Amendment. Fairfax County, Virginia has a population of over 1M, and is governed by a Board of Supervisors, consisting of 9 Supervisors and 1 Chairman. It worked. I am less interested in who is pushing for it and when than I am in seeing that it get done.

[dgriffin]

Apr 10, 2011 6:18:38 GMT -5 JGRobinson said:

Reducing without reorganization could produce what you say Dave. These districts were born out of the Buggy Whip days when it took a week or more to ride from one end of the county to the other.

And by the way, that's the problem ... gerrymandering. The districts were cut up so that they would be politically UNMIXED, not mixed. It's part and parcel of the same problem and that is politicians carving up the territory to their advantage. The more districts, the more legislators, the tougher that is to do, I'm thinking. So in the face of the call for a smaller county legislature,* I suggested we instead double the size. I should have suggested triple and drop medical benefits.

So when I asked our county rulers to tell me the savings to the taxpayer of eliminating about 6 legislators (even with medical benefits!) and would they please provide the dollar figure and also the percentage of the full budget so I could see how many dollars (or cents) it was saving me the taxpayer, I never heard back from them.

But LadyO is correct, they got the job got done. It just got done their way.


*Where the heck this theory of savings came from was of course from those who stood to take advantage of the idea. I think of smaller legislatures as the Ultimate Gerrymander. You think your OD is bad. Not once did our local Daily attempt the calculation I mention above to show the savings relative to the average homeowner's taxes.

[firstamendment]

With the number of legislators we've got now and the lack of results, it stands to reason that more is not better.

[dgriffin]

Maybe there's a tipping point.

[Swimmy]

You're still going to have the same number of people represented. However, after reading your posts, Dave, I note a different problem (or maybe the same and I'm just viewing it differently): the potential for a legislator to represent constituents with competing interests. In other words, take for example New York Mills and the Town of New Hartford. If they were to merge, the village residents would want to retain personal services that just aren't practical in the more rural parts of the town, e.g. sidewalk snow plowing. When discussing about reducing or merging services, this would force the legislator to either abstain (in which case no one is represented), or vote with one set of constituents over the other (most likely those with larger voting numbers).

[dgriffin]

That's true, Swimmy. And thinking of the two towns in my mind as I've posted to this thread, there is a difference of night and day between the two. One is semi rural and somewhat conservative with a population of folks who have mostly been here since dirt. The other town is mixed rural and suburban and has a strong and large population of people who have moved up from New York City and the its suburbs. And those are just two of the differences. With redistricting and our loss of a county legislator who has an interest in us our town's needs are not properly represented.

But that's just my situation. In general, I need to have explained to me again why reducing a legislature's number of representatives is a good idea. Cost savings doesn't seem that great or worthwhile. Is it? I've heard efficiency mentioned obliquely. How is the legislature of more value to citizens when it is smaller? What dynamic operates to improve governance?
So maybe someone can outline exactly how reducing the number of representatives in a legislative body can be beneficial to taxpayers.

[Swimmy]

I will take a stab at it, Dave. But I'll be honest, until you starting raising these points, I was more inclined to support the reduction. I am not necessarily opposed to so doing, yet. But, my eyes are open now.

Oneida County has consistently seen its overall population decrease, slowly, over the years. Therefore, there are not as many people to legislate over. So, in theory, those in the city receive less representation than those in the country. By reducing and redistricting appropriately, you reduce the over-representation. Or, in the less populous cities, where more than one legislator represents them, the cities gain more representation than the stagnant country constituents. If the city has 2 legislators for every 100 people, and the city shrank from 1000 to 500, but the number of legislators stay the same, then the 500 people in the city have twice the representation.

I admit, not some of my better bullshit, but at least I took a stab at it.

[dgriffin]

Swimmy, actually that makes sense when cast in the light of the city's over-representation. And no doubt it's a common problem around the state as cities fall in population. And with that fall would come a decrease in the city's production of sales taxes. Most of the sales taxes come now from the malls in the suburbs. But around the state I have indeed heard of counties where the major city or cities are getting a large share of tax receipts far beyond their contribution to sales tax revenue.

But back to legislature size. Is that how representation is determined? The mix of "suburban" and "city" reps doesn't self adjust according to the population distribution? Seems like THAT is the problem.

[larry]

I can see your points, Dave. I don't see there being a big problem with conflicting interests in Oneida County. If anything, the legislators living closest to their district usually vote against their district's needs anyway. Even when I was there, 99% of the votes were 28-1 or, on a good day, I could convince 6 or 7 to vote with me. Most of them just rubber stamp the legislation. There is no loyal opposition or two party system. I think that's what made Hennessy so unpopular. He actually tried to bring some debate and a loyal opposition. In return, the Democrats actually ended up being the more conservative party. The top ten ranked legislators by the Conservative Party were Democrats. Some may have called us obstructionists, but I saw it as being the loyal opposition and trying to bring new ideas. We always conducted our debates in a professional manner and stuck to the issues (many of those videos can be viewed on my old YouTube page).

Back to the size. I argued that the Charter Commission should have been made up of more regular citizens. Unfortunately, everyone on the committee was hand picked by the Chairman of the Board (including me). They weren't bad people, but they all had some vested interest. They were party operatives, appointees, MVCC staff that were appointed through the county's friends and family plan, etc. Again, good people but not very independent.

Also, the county should make the redistricting process independent like NY Uprising is pushing for at the state level. If the legislature controls it, it becomes less about the issues you're raising and more about gerrymandering. A committee of regular folks that have an interest in good government can certainly cut the county into 19-23 fairly represented districts. I mean, we have less congressional representatives in NYS that county legislators in Oneida County. And I think a smaller group would be easier to work with and would make more important votes more interesting.

And as for the $150,000. Remember, that's $1.5m over the course of 10 years. That's a ot of streets that could be paved, or simply money that can be used to offset tax increases, cell phone surcharges, sales tax increases, etc. Oneida County, and Utica, simply can't keep operating under a system that was developed 100 years ago. We need to get back to the basics and start making this an area where government works behind the scenes. Right now, it seems every job is government or quasi-government. That's not good. I have a lot of respect for government workers and public service (I am still a Democrat, lol), but there's a point where you must say enough is enough. The problem is that it's become functional for the career politician. They rely on the system of most votes coming from those that depend on them for their livelihood. I think reducing the size of the board also sends an important message that the politicians are willing to share in the sacrifice, and lessens the burden when we must consolidate and downsize many programs that simply aren't functioning the way they were intended.

These won't be popular choices, but, in my humble opinion, they're essential if we ever expect to get a handle on the situation here. If we don't do something soon, Utica is literally going bankrupt. The situation there is MUCH worse than anyone even knows.

[Swimmy]

Apr 12, 2011 23:16:26 GMT -5 @dgriffin said:

But back to legislature size. Is that how representation is determined? The mix of "suburban" and "city" reps doesn't self adjust according to the population distribution?

Not when the population deflating cities is not relocating to rural or suburban areas, but outside the county entirely.

[dgriffin]

Interesting thoughts, Larry. And I'll look up NY Uprising. You said a smaller group would be easier to work with, but somewhat qualified it by mention of a prior and fair job of re-districting. Either way, I'm sure a smaller legislature is easier to work with, and by that I assume you meant it's easier for a legislator to work with his fellows, which is a legitimate concern, but I think the sword swings either way, for good or bad, for representation or lack of it.

I think you're certainly right about too many people riding the gravy train. On which end to begin throwing them off is the question.