The Niagara County idocracy is in strong and secure hands in the Niagara County Legislature. Recent reports indicate that the ball is in play to downsize the ranks of the Niagara County Legislature by none other than the Legislature itself. But as far as I know, no good reasons, arguments, justifications or explanations for the need to considerably downsize the Legislature in NC have been given.
Idiocracy is a good name for this ethos of unreason. I really don’t mean to call or imply that any of the Legislators are idiots. They are not. However they are participating in issues and actions seemingly with their minds made up regarding both what is at issue and what the solutions are. In such an idiocracy, democracy is either dead or as Tom Christy likes to say: “being held hostage.” Nevertheless, meaningful discourse, dialogue, discussion, rational reflection, debate or self-accounting is absent. In the purging of Tom Christy from the now thoroughly exploited and instrumentalized LCTV; in the non-renewal of Joan Wolfgang to the NCCC Board of Directors; and now in the predilection to downsize the Legislature from 19 members to possibly as few as 11, again no requisite explanation or sustained rational debate is forthcoming. There is much talk that it will and should happen but as of yet it just doesn't seem to be happening. It's kind of like "Waiting for Godot." Though democracy may not be dead, the dialogue with the people surely is.
Maybe that’s why they hired a Public Information Officer. By the way whatever happened to Mr. Peck? Did I miss something here? I have not seen hide nor hair of him. Did he quit already? Get fired? If he is around somewhere, probably with his own show on LCTV, maybe he could explain this “downsizing” mania. Hellllooooooo, Mr.Peck! Where are you? Come out, come out wherever you are! Explain what's going on here. Or was I right the first time when I questioned whether he really isn't at all a Public Information Officer working to inform the public politically? That is, he is just going to be a marketing publicist for Niagara County, an arm of the IDA and Economic Development. "Public Information Officer" is a misnomer if not a euphemism for what the Legislature possibly didn't want to tell the public explicitly.
Nevertheless, back to the issue at hand: the age of unreason or a-rationality if not irrationality in NC. Chairman Ross has indicated to the media that with respect to the talk about “downsizing” our local Legislature, “its going around.”
What’s going around, I ask, Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross also shared with the Tonawanda News “It’s the principle.”
Mr. Ross, what principle is that? Is “downsizing” of government a principle?
“It sets the example and you move on from there,” Chairman Ross says.
Mr. Ross, what are we setting an example for or about? And what is this compulsion to keep “moving on?” Could it be that if anyone for any reasonable length of time examined what passes as “legislative action” we would realize that a-rational, robotic inertia has possessed the local government?
As far as I know there is no formulation forthcoming as to what the Legislature thinks it’s doing politically in its downsizing surge. But Mr. Ross hadn’t stopped there. After all why should he stop there? Why should one unsubstantiated opinion, assumption, act of conformity not lead to another. When you’re on a roll you keep going, no? And so Mr. Ross continues: “With this going around and being very visible you’ll likely get a county legislator to step up and get the process going.”
As I’ve asked before: Mr. Ross, Sir, what process is that??? Is it a process that’s “going around,” kind of like a disease or a fad or a fashion or a craze or what? What is it that’s visible? Is it Kevin Gaughan writing a bad article for the ArtVoice about downsizing? Is that what’s visible and going around? The fact is that there are more people who “think” that downsizing is a very bad idea than those who “think” it is a good idea. So what’s going around? The Pro’s or the Con’s? The Legislature seems to selectively “think”
That the Pro’s are “going around.”
Mr. Updegrove, majority Republican Legislative Leader says his caucus supports downsizing. Of course is he going to tell us why? He says its something we should explore and consider. Well that’s sounds promising but don’t forget that his “caucus” already supports downsizing; so if you’re a betting man put your money on them already having their collective mind made up. And so far only God and the caucus know why, if in fact they really even even have any idea why they “think” what they do. I become even more skeptical when Mr. Updegrove adds that we need to “determine how we should implement a reduction.” UH, OH! Sound like the “machine” has started to build momentum, despite that the cart may be well before the horse here.
Mr. Updegrove was reported to have said that “The question is what level of representation is optimum.” And he’s right. Now let’s have a meaningful discourse about this and begin the INQUIRY as to what is best for our county governmentally if not politically. But in the same interview Mr. Updegrove says, “We are committed to reducing the size of government in Niagara County.” UH OH! Sounds like commitment precedes justifiability here doesn’t it?
We all know that reducing costs is driving this. But this is another example of pennywise and pound foolish. Democracy is the heart and soul of the Republic. If representation is not optimized, then we move toward “managerial government in toto” not just “county manager government.” Then again maybe we should just dump all the Legislators and let Mr. Lewis run things. He seems to have a decent business sense. That should make the business crowd all warm and fuzzy. If his ‘business sense’ is not sensible enough then for the government-based-on-a-business-model ideologists, then just hire a better manager. Who needs government after all?
But given that desperate attempts to save money is behind this, could we be slightly be confusing downsizing with consolidation. It seems to me that there may be an overlap here, but the merging of auto bureaus and eliminating 8 Legislators lay in different domains of significance.
Given that several weeks have passed since the first reports came out about downsizing, one would like to believe that some real discussion has taken place. Possibly it did at the September legislative meeting. I don’t know. I missed it. But once again why isn’t Peck informing me about this. The least I could get is an e-mail from the guy.
What we have gotten as far as I know is a recent Tonawanda News article claiming that the Legislature does “believe the time has come to at least start talking about reducing the Legislature’s ranks.” And I ask again, what “time” is that? What “time” has come? Sounds dramatic but I’d really like to know what “time” that is? It seems like somebody thinks this has been brewing for some time and now it’s “time” to shit or get off the pot. Personally other than the Gaughan project I don’t know of any other brew on the political stove. Is Kevin Gaughan that influential? When I read his uncritical, unreflective article, I just didn’t see the “pied piper” quality shining forth.
Nevertheless as Mr. Ross predicted Ceretto, Farnham and Sklarski are expected to “step up” and present a resolution “that calls for the Legislature to support a plan to reduce its own membership once the 2010 Census has been completed. So I guess “they” really are “committed.” Still no justification. When does Updegrove’s “exploring and considering” come in? Or was that just for public consumption to make them sound like they really think about what they plan to do no matter what YOU the citizen think about it? Yet, given that such a decision depends upon “future census numbers, redistricting and input from lawmakers themselves,” according to the News, I should suspect the “input” should begin, considering how slow and tedious such “input” can be in coming forth and how much getting such input out to the public is like pulling teeth from a rhinocerous, especially when it requires some convincing justification.
The News reports that Cerreto says the resolution “is intended to spur debate over how best to approach downsizing so that the Legislature is prepared to do what it needs to do when the time comes.” God, there’s that “when the time comes” thing again. Sounds like something out of Dicken’s “Christmas Carole.” When the “time comes” you get your comeuppance kind of like ol’ Scrooge.
Cerreto “thinks” that 220,000 citizens would best be served by “reducing the number of elected leaders in the county, and, perhaps at other levels as well.” But why? Why? Why? Please give me some decent reason or even some indecent reason.
What we got was “the county has been moving in a direction to reduce government,” Ceretto said. It has. Since when. And who/what exactly is “the county?” “The county” is moving? What the hell does this mean, please pray tell!
“As legislators, we need to take the first step. We have to be the leaders. We have to set the example.” Where is the “need” in all this, the necessity to reduce government? Why now? Who are you leading and do you really care whether they want to be led in this direction?
Apparently Sklarski claimed that the resolution will not bind the Legislature but provide a “benchmark” from which Legislators can work. Please, again, I really hate to be repetitious, bu somebody tell me what that benchmark is! I wait with bated breath. Sklarski says he THINKS 11 is an appropriate number for the county. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Take your time because even though the “time has come,” for “considering,” the “time to do what it NEEDS to do” has not come.
Sklarski we hear is also leading by “example,”even though, with him also, we still don’t know what his lead is an example of. Sklarski says you just have to be “willing to lead by example.” So now some sort of “will” is involved. Maybe the Legislature has secretly been reading Friedrich Nietzsche and has bought into some political “will to power.” So far there has been no "leadership" at all. There has only been conformist "followership," their fingers to the wind ready to do what "seems" to be acceptable and politically useful.
So maybe the Legislature has developed the will-to-power to lead by example to do what needs to be done when the time comes given that we need to do what has been going around and is in the air and since the county has been moving in this direction anyhow. Go figure!
Idiocracy? Please prove me wrong, very, very wrong.
14 comments:
wow it took about a week and a half for you to think of this one
Whether it took me a minute or ten years to think of "this one," the point which for you is obviously not significant, is missed. Or possibly you are the point. The point is about people who either don't have a clue or don't care that the polity slowly and impercptibly degenerates into a mindless, thoughtless, depoliticized, class-structured machine based on business models, efficiency and cost effectiveness. IF this isn't a problem for you, then obviously you too have degenerated comfortably into the "normality" of the idiocracy. You'll fit well. You've become everything "the people" should not be, at least in an authentic democracy.
Larry,
Why don't you bring some of this stuff to the next county meeting?
Put these questions to your representatives in person. And the only reason why the Niagara Falls democrats are against the reduction is because they see the writing on the wall – less people in the City of Niagara Falls means less of them.
Wake up, “right sizing” in government is nothing new, as the population shrinks, reductions are necessary, because there is less people to serve and less people to pay for the service.
Now lets talk about you.
I'm STILL waiting for your recommendations on how to eliminate the administrative staff at NCCC by having professor perform these duties.
Why can’t you deliver on what you proposed?
Why can’t you deliver on what you proposed?
Why can’t you deliver on what you proposed?
Why can’t you deliver on what you proposed?
Answer: you are all talk and no action.
Out
Dear Larry,
Great to have you back, I figured with the start of a new school year you we busy working. I noticed you posted on the buffalo pundit, that site sure did slow down now that McCain ate Obama's lunch. It will be sad to see someone at 72 become president, I wish he would of won 8 years ago, maybe things would be better now.
So what better time to focus on the local issues, now Sklarski, he has his whole family working for the town of niagara, so he's a democrat at the town but when he gets to lockport he becomes republican. King George runs the county so tight even the Niagara Falls reporter is afraid to print any thing about him. But some morons picket the Red Coach and 3 reporters were there. Oh by the way the idiot who ends his coment with "out" is hobbes.
Anon,
I do suspect you are the one who needs to wake up. "Right sizing," a wonderful euphemism for manipulating constituencies, consolidating power and reducing the likelihood that the voiceless will have a voice, is not necessary. .... Why is one Legislator for every 11,000 people too many? Where is that written? Possibly you found it in the King James Version? Or did God speak to you. You and the powers that unfortunately be have given no convincing reasons why 19 Leg's is too many. I think it's not enough. If we had a few more Legislators we might find one or two who has some interest in relating to the people in some way other than 15 minutes on Access to Government. Get rid of the new boy for the economic development, Mr. Peck, who, by the way, is falsely, misleadingly named a Public Information Officer, and we could pay for 3 more Legislators. (Peck, by the way, is I just discovered, really a publicist, as I orignially suspected, working for Sloma and Ferraro.
And, Anon, don't hold your breath waiting for me to waste my time trying to debunk the administrative apparatus at NCCC. It's there to stay since the Board has found someone they think might kill the union. I have better things to do. As Lao Tzu said: don't find battles you don't know you can win beforehand. The bureacratic pathology is here to stay, at least during my lifetime.
Besides I don't pretend to be a politician. ... And as far as all talk and no action. Talk is action. Writing and teaching are actions also. You might want to consider spending less time hanging out with those politicos who are all "action" and no thought. But if you think that brute power, intimidation, manipulation, favoritism and lies are "action," they why is Niagara County still in the shitter? Action without results isn't action.
Sorry, the above Lao Tzu quote should have said "fight" battles, not "find."
That comfirms it... And the next time I see you at the meeting I'm going to call you ass out...
You said that you had a plan to reduce admin cost at NCCC but you never did - becasue you are all talk and not action Leisure suit Larry...
And that little red purse you carry around is just so sweet.
Hugs and kisses
Anon.,
I look forward to meeting you at the next meeting. ... But, come on, leisure suits? Now that really hurts.
Sorry, professor, but I've been away.
As a point of information, I believe any measure to change the size of a county legislature in New York State -- larger or smaller -- would require a referendum in a general election. Meaning, it would be the voters that would decide whether or not any proposal is implemented. I'm not 100 percent sure, but I believe that to be true.
You will recall several years ago (2000, maybe?) there was a referendum to institute an elected county executive position in Niagara County, similar to what is done in most counties in the state. Voters rejected it, so instead we have something of a hybrid -- an elected legislature that chooses its own chairman, with an appointed county manager.
Further, any such move to change the size of the legislature can only take place after the next national census in 2010. Why? Because any redistricting that might have to be done to change the number of legislators requires census data to assure that each new district is relatively close in size.
A cynical point of view would say that the GOP currently favors it because the growth areas of the county typically vote Republican -- Wheatfield, Pendleton. The Dems don't favor it because they are already behind the 8-ball in terms of voting bloc power on the leg and their primary power base -- Niagara Falls -- continues to shrink in population and thus might see fewer representatives in any sort of redistricting. Both of which, by the way, are true.
So, yes, some of this is about power and how it is distributed. But, in fairness (particularly to Bill Ross), this is also about cost and the recognition that taxpayers in Niagara County are reaching the breaking point.
I don't hear them saying 19 legislators is too many. I hear them saying that now, in these clearly difficult economic times, might be an appropriate time to take a look at the numbers. Examining an issue, developing a plan to address it, and then giving the voters the chance to say yes or no seems to me to be exactly the thing to do.
You correctly point out that no one, yet, has given an evidence that fewer than 19 would be better. Just as no one, yet, has offered any evidence that we would be better off with more than 19. For a long, long time, all we've had is the experience of HAVING 19 legislators. You are quick to point out how out of touch and off the track Niagara County is, so maybe -- just maybe -- the 19 idea isn't working so well.
Before I slam the door shut on an idea, I like to examine the idea first. In this case, you and I as voters will have the final say. In the end, what more can we ask for?
Hey Pirate,
Like a knight in shining armor, voice of reason, that is, just when I needed it. Such a breath of fresh air after being accused of wearing leisure suits by the above Anon.. No apology necessary for your absence.
Not a lot to disagree with here. Maybe it’s too early for me to get cynical about this. But from what I’ve read in several articles in the papers, the Leg’s who did interview sound like the whole issue is a foregone conclusion. I don’t believe that is an exaggeration. And the languaging is just embarrassing.
If this is a matter for referendum, the Leg still will be very influential in how it’s spun and how many if not most of the public see it.
If “benchmark” means that population size automatically translates into a given proportional number of representatives according to tradition or law, I’m still not satisfied. Why? Niagara Falls is the case in point. They are not doing well as it is with the representation they have. How do you demonstrate that less representation is going to improve their lot? Granted size doesn’t always count or matter. But I’ll go with size until I hear a convincing argument to the contrary.
I don’t however agree with the cost argument. As I see it, it is merely a legitmating factor. If they were so bent out of shape about cost, they wouldn’t have hired a pseudo-public information officer for $40,000 who is really another tool in the bag of tricks of the EDA. He’s a publicist and should be called that instead of this insulting euphemism that really got my hopes up that the Leg was concerned about real information for the public. Silly, silly me!
If they were really concerned about money, they wouldn’t be thinking about hiring a Homeland Security Director. If they were concerned about homeland security why isn't anybody saying/doing anything about my question regarding an essentially unprotected Lewiston-Queenston Bridge?
And if they were really concerned about money, they wouldn’t have been so suspiciously ready to give millions away to AES.
Lastly if they were really so concerned about money, why didn’t they get interest on that 2 million they gave the IDA. Money invested in private business requires a dividend/interest for the investor/loan agent doesn’t it? Why should tax money so invested be any different? Isn’t that what capitalism is all about? But when tax money is used, it’s considered enough that a few more shitty jobs may be created or in the case of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, we may continue to get mortgages for the middle class. But this doesn’t sound quite equitable to me. [Also sounds like state capitalism at best not free-market capitalism, not authentically competitive capitalism.] But I would argue that the history of capitalist development has relied more on force, violence and legal coercion than upon just competition.
The business investment/loan crowd doesn’t want to play by the rules when they can get their hands on free tax money. And they complain about teachers’ salaries. For shame! Or how wrong am I here?
Professor --
I tend not to put a lot of stock in quotes in our local papers, for two primary reasons. First, I think folks tend to talk differently to reporters than they might to you and me -- you know, thinking they have to sound more "official" than just a conversation. And, I usually doubt the quotes are as exact as today's media would have us believe.
You are correct, though -- if it is the Legislature's proposal that goes on the ballot, they will have their take on it, or "spin," if you will. However, keep in mind that the legislature put the county exec issue on the ballot some years ago with their spin on it, and voters rejected it. Give the populace a bit more credit, Larry. (Full disclosure -- I happen to support the concept of an elected county executive, but what do I know?)
I don't know very much about the public information/publicist post, not do I know much about the homeland security job -- although I thought that was pulled from consideration.
Don't know why they didn't seek interest from the IDA loan, other than possibly seeking interest would, in effect, diminish the relative value of that amount as an economic development tool.
I would ask that you look at both sides of the AES situation. AES claimed for years that the plant was over-assessed; the town/school/village obviously disagreed. It ended up in court (several times, I believe). The county was asked by the court to attempt to find a solution, I think to avoid having the court impose one. The only mechanism the county had available to it to do so was through the IDA.
Seems to me the pressure now ought to be on AES. They said that a lower tax bill would not only be fair, but would potentially lead to additional investment in the facility. So?
I do not sympathize with AES, but I do empathize, having gone through my own assessment battles over property I own. My battle was worth thousands, not millions, but that shouldn't matter. Most of the cards in that game are held by the entity doing the assessing, and court is a likely outcome in disputes. Been there, done that, as the saying goes.
And, clearly, local government have been taking advantage of the golden goose that it that plant. Nothing illegal about that, but this latest battle shows that such local governments just assume that those golden eggs will always be there. I have no idea whether or not threats to close the facility were real, but imagine what would happen to the tax base up there if it did. Nothing is forever, and for the town or school district to act surprised when they had been in court for years on end seems just silly.
What's the old saying? Hope for the best, plan for the worst?
Professor Castellani, I know your not busy grading papers, because no professor gives a paper in the first few weeks. Where is your new post? Ahhhh, you're probably just spell checking line 200 of it. Well im waiting and if i can understand this post, maybe ill respond with somthing intelligent because I usually never do.
P.S. The username "the people" does not mean the people of Niagara County. It represents the people that call themselves "the people"...think about it.
Dear "the people,"
So, does the clarification of your username, "the people," mean that you are a populist? Neo-populist Federalist like me? Or some variation thereof? Or none of the above?
Larry: This whole downsizing issue is a sham to make the majority caucus look like they are doing something constructive. They talk alot to give the public the perception that they are moving forward but it is a charade. Larry, our only hope as residents of Niagara County is for the Dems to take over in the White House. Then, the local US Attorney's Office will have a changeover and the new staff, along with the FBI, will finally have the will to uncover the crap and illegality that has been going on with this majority caucus and the Niagara County Republican party. With the present Bush appointed US Attorney's Office, the Rep. have nothing to worry about.
Post a Comment