Board of legislators cut by four.

[Clipper]

uticadailynews.com/utica_daily_focus/20966-County-Board-cuts-legislators-four.html

There ya go Larry T! Not as deep of a cut as your proposed cuts when you were on the board, but it is a start. You and others stirred the pot and that effort is just now showing results, several years after the fact. What do ya think Oneida County residents? Is it a worthwhile start toward shrinking government and lowering costs?

[firstamendment]

A good start, even though I reside in Herkimer County. Our county should do the same. We've got I believe 17 legislators for less than 70K people.

And to be honest, government should always be resizing along with the size of the population they serve.

[Clipper]

You are 100% correct in that theory FA. I am also a proponent of making such positions volunteer, rather than paid positions. One might get more candidates that were interested in actually serving the people, instead of raping them for pay and benefits for a mere part time position. Taxpayers should be saddled with paying actual expenses only, not a wage.

I think it is ridiculous for a city like Utica to have to pay benefits for common council people. There is another place where cuts could be made. With Utica's population, they could probably efficiently operate with about 5 council members, total. (oops, sorry about that Larry, haha)

[firstamendment]

That's the thing. It seems to me it should take less government to govern less people. Utica's population is roughly half what it used to be. Has Utica's government shrank at all? And this is nothing personal against any of them but if you have less people then you have less taxpayers to support government operations, therefore it is imperitive to reduce the size of it. It is unfortunate that has taken as long as it has for places like Oneida county to finally see it.

[larry]

I agree with you, Clipper. I proposed, in 2004, when I was on the Charter Revision Commission, that the city eliminate the Council President and all three at-large positions and go to seven districts. That would give the people better representation (due to the smaller districts) and still save the cost of three council positions. Many think there's a need to keep at least one at-large position, so I think a good compromise would be to eliminate the Council President's position and two at-large positions. The President's position is nothing more than ceremonial anyway. We could elect a Chairman from within the council to run the meetings and still have a vote - just like the county legislature.

As for the legislature, I'm happy they reduced something, but I'm more excited to see that there were 9 members that pushed to go even further. I though six was too little. They only reduced the four because of the public pressure, otherwise they wouldn't have reduced at all. But the fact that 9 legislators (from both parties) stood up and said it wasn't enough - that's a great sign.

[Deleted]

I have always said that political office should be not paid. They should volunteer if they really cared about whatever it is they want to do. Now watch the council ask for more money! LOL

[realist13413]

May 27, 2011 13:56:22 GMT -5 @alanquigly said:

I have always said that political office should be not paid. They should volunteer if they really cared about whatever it is they want to do. Now watch the council ask for more money! LOL

I don't mind a full time position being paid, but part time is redonkulous. I sit on two boards, one elected one not, neither paid - both time-consuming. No pay insures that people who genuinely want to serve their community step up. (Though I'm sure there are genuinely motivated folks being paid.)