It's removing one layer of government, which is a good thing. But then we may wind up with supervisors constantly arguing for their particular town as opposed to what's good for the county as a whole. It's an idea that merits thought. I stand undecided at the moment. Probably not much chance of having the legislature open discussions on this topic, this would have to started by an outside entity.
The basic choice is between urban or rural empowerment. With the legislature, 1 vote is representative of approx 8500 people. A Board of Supervisors: 1 vote would represent 6,000 residents, Town of Batavia; 16,300, City of Batavia; 2500, Town of Alexander; 3000, Darien; 2500, Pavilion; 1700, Bethany; 4500, Pembroke; 7800, LeRoy; 2500, Byron; 1900, Alabama; 3200, Oakfield; 2400, Elba and 3900, Bergen. As a Bergen resident, I'd rather see Bergen share equal voice with City of Batavia. I doubt the reverse is true.
CM,
The current legislature has weighted voting system now. That means that the Town of Batavia's vote carries more weight than say, Oakfield.
That really should not change with a Board of Supervisors, it would still be weighted voting, except for the City of Bataiva.
Right now the City vote is divided by 3 legislators. Under the proposed system, the 3 votes would be combined into 1 vote. But the total City weight would be the same.
John (unless you are privy to a charter proposal) since there is no board of supervisors, it would be difficult to assess what weight any jurisdiction's vote might carry. Intuitively, the reason that Bergen, Byron and Elba are combined as one legislative district rather than three, independently, their populations are subordinate to other districts.
CM,
If you have a Board of Supervisors, it will end up being
weighted voting, no way around it. One person, one vote does not work when Town boundaries are involved. Do you have some formula that would make it different?
Bergen, Byron and Elba would each have a representative. The Town of Batavia and Stafford would split if you went to this new system. If you wanted to combine a few towns, then way bother with a change at all?
In the end, the City has the largest single vote, then the Town of Batavia. Other towns are just smaller. Nobody would really know a towns voting weight until the final census figures are released (I doubt the City has the 16,300 you cited anymore).
Originally, I was thinking that a Board of Supervisors would be smaller with the 3 City districts being combined into 1. I forgot many towns are now combined with 1 legislator (Towns of Batavia and Stafford being an example).
John, I'm not arguing with you. Unlike the current legislature, a board of supervisors means each town owns a seat at the table- weighted or unweighted. My point, purely rhetorical: since the organization does not exist, any assumptions about details exist in the realm of imagination.
Yes, it is an idea worth pursuing. Especially if our towns are interested in paying their supervisors for the added burden.
Dave - I don't buy into the governing for the entire county line. Legislators should represent their districts, their districts and their districts. That's it.
I voted yes, there is absolutely no need for another layer of representatives. The town supervisor in each town is elected by their constituents and the Batavia City Council President is an at-large Councilmember who has been elected by their constituents. There is no reason why they cannot work together to administer County Government as well. I believe that they also will have the best interest of their own communities at heart when they make decisions and not fall into the trap of thinking that they have to represent the entire county.
This is not partisan either. If this were to pass presently, Marianne Clattenberg, a Republican, would represent me on the Board of Supervisors. I am totally fine with that.
Honestly, either way it doesn't really matter. A Board of Supervisors will necessarily have to enact weighted voting to be in line with the "one person, one vote" rule handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims. No matter how you determine a system of county wide representation, each representative must either speak for the same number of people or have the same relative voting power.
The best solution to this issue would be to take a lesson from Erie County's playbook and redraw the legislative districts for Genesee County. Instead of the complicated issue of "weighted voting", redraw the districts so that a fair number of legislators represent the interests of the same number of people. I assume this would result in dividing the city vote up and combining town votes. There is really no reason why the citizens of Alabama, Oakfield, and Pembroke can't all represent the same interests, as presumably these towns all have similar goals for county money.
At the end of the day everyone wants the same thing - an opportunity to make an honest living. What our representatives at the county level should be worried about is directing money from Albany into the most efficient ways to create economic growth, and reducing administrative waste at the county level.
Cooper,
This idea of Board of Supervisors was raised by people who do not like the move to eliminate GJ from the budget by the nine current legislators. This is idea is a bit of backlash.
Moving the election district lines would probably not have changed that. The same nine would be in the legislature. The thought of some is that if we had a Board of Supervisors, GJ would be saved. That is based on the belief they would be more willing to raise taxes than the current legislators. I think it would be the opposite.
But it does eliminate one level of government while resulting in a larger body. And I agree with Dan Jones, they will more likely look out more for their own towns than the current system has resulted in. Currently, the legislators think they represent the County to us, rather than us to the County.
John, I don't recall supports of GJ, per se, raising this issue in anyway related to thinking a board of supervisors would save GJ.
I remember Dan Jones bringing it up in a GJ discussion, but more in the context of "I think this is a good idea and I'll just happen to mention it now." And nobody said, "yeah, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about GJ getting cut."
I just thought it was a good idea for a poll question.
That said, I don't see how it would save any money. Town supervisors currently have de facto full-time jobs in those rolls, and now you want to add countywide responsibilities on top of that? Taxpayers would pretty much have to pay them a full-time salary to do both jobs.
The idea wouldn't eliminate the need for any current county staff.
I'm just dubious that there would be much cost savings or that it would make much difference in representation.
Howard,
I agree that having a Board of Supervisors (BoS) or elected legislators has no relationship to the size of the current county workforce, and why would it?
As for salaries, each town, and the city, would have to decide what is fair additional pay, if any. That probably would result in people sitting in a room all making different amounts. There would be a county budget savings not having to pay salary, retirement and health care costs. But there might be an increase at the town/city level, but only in pay and maybe not even then.
Theoretically, a BoS does bring county government closer to the people. I also think a BoS would result in less support for any non governmental agencies.
But if some group is really all that interested in a BoS, they can do a real study and make a presentation to the public. Otherwise, it is just a fun topic.
I didn't realize the question was raised in relation to the GJ issue. If the issue is whether or not our elected representatives are truly representing the views of their constituents, it seems to me that this is an issue for an election rather than a change to Genesee County's charter. If there are enough people who would rather have an increase in taxes and keep GJ, and your legislator votes against it, run for election against him or her and make the changes you seek.
If this question is not in response to GJ and is purely a "what if" scenario, I agree with Dan that legislators are elected to represent the interests of their district exclusively. Mr. Gsell's job is see the picture from the county wide view. My point was that, from a governing perspective, it would be easier and frankly more constitutional to redraw the district lines after the census results come in.
The other real change in representation that I see is to reduce the number of legislators. There is really no need for nine different representatives in a county of Genesee's population. Reduce it to seven and redraw the districts accordingly so each represents the same number of people. Also, relatively small they may be, this will have cost savings associated. This would be my ideal Genesee County Legislature.
Also if this issue has been talked about before, my apologies. I've just recently started paying closer attention to the discussion on here.
Cooper,
The discussion of a Board of Supervisors did not come up until the issue of GJ. It is my opinion they were tied together.
Reducing the current legislative arrangement to 7 would not be all that hard, pending a vote on the issue. And it could be easily done by eliminating two of the three City seats.
John - I originally brought it up, and as the person who brought it up I can tell you that they aren't. I noticed that there was some controversy surrounding an upcoming legislative decision and thought that it was a good time to do so as people are paying attention to the legislature. There is no reason to believe that a BoS would not make the same decision regarding Genesee Justice as the County Legislature has. My point was simply that we have too many layers of government in New York State, the more ways we can reduce the number of representatives and therefore layers we have the better. One could simply pick up a phone and let their opinions be known on both a town issue and a county issue in the same conversation with the same person.
Cooper and John- Reducing the size of the legislature, in my opinion, is close but still misses the point. It is also to the disadvantage of rural residents as they would lose their voting power in relation to their legislator, one could just spend more time campaigning in the more populated part of their districts. A Board of Supervisors, with weighted voting as a fairness measure, would provide town/city residents with fair representation (one representative per town.
It's removing one layer of
It's removing one layer of government, which is a good thing. But then we may wind up with supervisors constantly arguing for their particular town as opposed to what's good for the county as a whole. It's an idea that merits thought. I stand undecided at the moment. Probably not much chance of having the legislature open discussions on this topic, this would have to started by an outside entity.
The basic choice is between
The basic choice is between urban or rural empowerment. With the legislature, 1 vote is representative of approx 8500 people. A Board of Supervisors: 1 vote would represent 6,000 residents, Town of Batavia; 16,300, City of Batavia; 2500, Town of Alexander; 3000, Darien; 2500, Pavilion; 1700, Bethany; 4500, Pembroke; 7800, LeRoy; 2500, Byron; 1900, Alabama; 3200, Oakfield; 2400, Elba and 3900, Bergen. As a Bergen resident, I'd rather see Bergen share equal voice with City of Batavia. I doubt the reverse is true.
CM, The current legislature
CM,
The current legislature has weighted voting system now. That means that the Town of Batavia's vote carries more weight than say, Oakfield.
That really should not change with a Board of Supervisors, it would still be weighted voting, except for the City of Bataiva.
Right now the City vote is divided by 3 legislators. Under the proposed system, the 3 votes would be combined into 1 vote. But the total City weight would be the same.
John (unless you are privy to
John (unless you are privy to a charter proposal) since there is no board of supervisors, it would be difficult to assess what weight any jurisdiction's vote might carry. Intuitively, the reason that Bergen, Byron and Elba are combined as one legislative district rather than three, independently, their populations are subordinate to other districts.
CM, If you have a Board of
CM,
If you have a Board of Supervisors, it will end up being
weighted voting, no way around it. One person, one vote does not work when Town boundaries are involved. Do you have some formula that would make it different?
Bergen, Byron and Elba would each have a representative. The Town of Batavia and Stafford would split if you went to this new system. If you wanted to combine a few towns, then way bother with a change at all?
In the end, the City has the largest single vote, then the Town of Batavia. Other towns are just smaller. Nobody would really know a towns voting weight until the final census figures are released (I doubt the City has the 16,300 you cited anymore).
Originally, I was thinking that a Board of Supervisors would be smaller with the 3 City districts being combined into 1. I forgot many towns are now combined with 1 legislator (Towns of Batavia and Stafford being an example).
But I think this is an idea worth looking into.
John, I'm not arguing with
John, I'm not arguing with you. Unlike the current legislature, a board of supervisors means each town owns a seat at the table- weighted or unweighted. My point, purely rhetorical: since the organization does not exist, any assumptions about details exist in the realm of imagination.
Yes, it is an idea worth pursuing. Especially if our towns are interested in paying their supervisors for the added burden.
Dave - I don't buy into the
Dave - I don't buy into the governing for the entire county line. Legislators should represent their districts, their districts and their districts. That's it.
I voted yes, there is
I voted yes, there is absolutely no need for another layer of representatives. The town supervisor in each town is elected by their constituents and the Batavia City Council President is an at-large Councilmember who has been elected by their constituents. There is no reason why they cannot work together to administer County Government as well. I believe that they also will have the best interest of their own communities at heart when they make decisions and not fall into the trap of thinking that they have to represent the entire county.
This is not partisan either. If this were to pass presently, Marianne Clattenberg, a Republican, would represent me on the Board of Supervisors. I am totally fine with that.
It seems to work well in
It seems to work well in neighboring Wyoming County.
Honestly, either way it
Honestly, either way it doesn't really matter. A Board of Supervisors will necessarily have to enact weighted voting to be in line with the "one person, one vote" rule handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reynolds v. Sims. No matter how you determine a system of county wide representation, each representative must either speak for the same number of people or have the same relative voting power.
The best solution to this issue would be to take a lesson from Erie County's playbook and redraw the legislative districts for Genesee County. Instead of the complicated issue of "weighted voting", redraw the districts so that a fair number of legislators represent the interests of the same number of people. I assume this would result in dividing the city vote up and combining town votes. There is really no reason why the citizens of Alabama, Oakfield, and Pembroke can't all represent the same interests, as presumably these towns all have similar goals for county money.
At the end of the day everyone wants the same thing - an opportunity to make an honest living. What our representatives at the county level should be worried about is directing money from Albany into the most efficient ways to create economic growth, and reducing administrative waste at the county level.
Cooper, This idea of Board of
Cooper,
This idea of Board of Supervisors was raised by people who do not like the move to eliminate GJ from the budget by the nine current legislators. This is idea is a bit of backlash.
Moving the election district lines would probably not have changed that. The same nine would be in the legislature. The thought of some is that if we had a Board of Supervisors, GJ would be saved. That is based on the belief they would be more willing to raise taxes than the current legislators. I think it would be the opposite.
But it does eliminate one level of government while resulting in a larger body. And I agree with Dan Jones, they will more likely look out more for their own towns than the current system has resulted in. Currently, the legislators think they represent the County to us, rather than us to the County.
John, I don't recall supports
John, I don't recall supports of GJ, per se, raising this issue in anyway related to thinking a board of supervisors would save GJ.
I remember Dan Jones bringing it up in a GJ discussion, but more in the context of "I think this is a good idea and I'll just happen to mention it now." And nobody said, "yeah, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about GJ getting cut."
I just thought it was a good idea for a poll question.
That said, I don't see how it would save any money. Town supervisors currently have de facto full-time jobs in those rolls, and now you want to add countywide responsibilities on top of that? Taxpayers would pretty much have to pay them a full-time salary to do both jobs.
The idea wouldn't eliminate the need for any current county staff.
I'm just dubious that there would be much cost savings or that it would make much difference in representation.
Howard, I agree that having a
Howard,
I agree that having a Board of Supervisors (BoS) or elected legislators has no relationship to the size of the current county workforce, and why would it?
As for salaries, each town, and the city, would have to decide what is fair additional pay, if any. That probably would result in people sitting in a room all making different amounts. There would be a county budget savings not having to pay salary, retirement and health care costs. But there might be an increase at the town/city level, but only in pay and maybe not even then.
Theoretically, a BoS does bring county government closer to the people. I also think a BoS would result in less support for any non governmental agencies.
But if some group is really all that interested in a BoS, they can do a real study and make a presentation to the public. Otherwise, it is just a fun topic.
It might make elections more
It might make elections more competitive.
John, I didn't realize the
John,
I didn't realize the question was raised in relation to the GJ issue. If the issue is whether or not our elected representatives are truly representing the views of their constituents, it seems to me that this is an issue for an election rather than a change to Genesee County's charter. If there are enough people who would rather have an increase in taxes and keep GJ, and your legislator votes against it, run for election against him or her and make the changes you seek.
If this question is not in response to GJ and is purely a "what if" scenario, I agree with Dan that legislators are elected to represent the interests of their district exclusively. Mr. Gsell's job is see the picture from the county wide view. My point was that, from a governing perspective, it would be easier and frankly more constitutional to redraw the district lines after the census results come in.
The other real change in representation that I see is to reduce the number of legislators. There is really no need for nine different representatives in a county of Genesee's population. Reduce it to seven and redraw the districts accordingly so each represents the same number of people. Also, relatively small they may be, this will have cost savings associated. This would be my ideal Genesee County Legislature.
Also if this issue has been talked about before, my apologies. I've just recently started paying closer attention to the discussion on here.
Cooper, The discussion of a
Cooper,
The discussion of a Board of Supervisors did not come up until the issue of GJ. It is my opinion they were tied together.
Reducing the current legislative arrangement to 7 would not be all that hard, pending a vote on the issue. And it could be easily done by eliminating two of the three City seats.
John - I originally brought
John - I originally brought it up, and as the person who brought it up I can tell you that they aren't. I noticed that there was some controversy surrounding an upcoming legislative decision and thought that it was a good time to do so as people are paying attention to the legislature. There is no reason to believe that a BoS would not make the same decision regarding Genesee Justice as the County Legislature has. My point was simply that we have too many layers of government in New York State, the more ways we can reduce the number of representatives and therefore layers we have the better. One could simply pick up a phone and let their opinions be known on both a town issue and a county issue in the same conversation with the same person.
Cooper and John- Reducing the size of the legislature, in my opinion, is close but still misses the point. It is also to the disadvantage of rural residents as they would lose their voting power in relation to their legislator, one could just spend more time campaigning in the more populated part of their districts. A Board of Supervisors, with weighted voting as a fairness measure, would provide town/city residents with fair representation (one representative per town.