August 1, 2002
Joe Golombek answers Common Council questions
In "How
whitebig should Buffalo's Common Council be" (Buffalo Report, 23 July 2002) we asked several questions about what is going on in the Buffalo Common Council. Joe Golombek, who represents Buffalo's North District on the Council, offered this response:
After having read your July 23 Buffalo Report I thought I would answer some of the questions that you posed.
First off let me clarify my position on the size and configuration of the Buffalo Common Council. During the Charter Revision process, when there were two white and two black citywide Council members, I advocated a nine-member all-district council. Once being elected to the Council my position was to support a council of nine members with configuration open for discussion. It is my opinion that the leadership of the Council thought that there were eight votes to keep the status quo so compromise was not necessary. This became even more apparent after the budget process when the Council President refused to return my calls. This was most likely because I voted against the budget and proposed (with Bonifacio, Coppola and Franczyk) to cut $750,000 from the Council budget to save some police officers.
In your Buffalo Report you listed some “Questions that remain” that you have not seen addressed anywhere.The bulk of my job and my two legislative assistants is constituent services. We probably spend 75% of our time dealing with complaints. They range from junior high students causing trouble before and after summer school on Elmwood and Delevan to garbage/recycling not being picked up and everything in between. These are all issues that the Mayor’s Complaint Line should solve but do not. Over the past week BERC has recommended businesses contact my office about the benefits of the Economic Development Zone. BERC knows more about the benefits and process than I do but tells them to call their Councilmember anyway. When I asked one staffer from BERC why, the answer was simple: some Councilmembers want to play the part of being important and then wants to add these businesses to their donors list.What, exactly, does the Common Council and its staff members really do?
On our free time we try to explore issues that could help the City of Buffalo out of its current malaise. Two years ago I began lobbying state officials about changing the dangerous dog law so we could seize dangerous dogs before they attack someone. Over the past year I have been championing something called CitiStat that has been used in Baltimore to bring accountability to government and save $24 million in two years. This has met opposition from some City Hall apparatchiks because it could make them less powerful and the city more efficient.Council Members at-large are supposed to serve all the residents of the City of Buffalo, the 54% white, the 37% black and everyone else. Except for Rose LoTempio and her Lighted Schoolhouse program, I see little if any of the other Citywide Councilmembers doing anything for North. As a matter of act, at a recent Council meeting Beverly Gray said she represents the East Side of Buffalo because that is where her support comes from. Imagine if a white said that.What, exactly, do the at-large members of the Common Council do, and whom do they serve?
An interesting story would be to look into where the Councilmembers put their item money. I can guarantee you it is not divided up among the entire city.This is a good question. If I run for reelection next year I will be running on a platform of a four-year plan that makes the Common Council a part time body much like Rochester or Syracuse but only better. That is how we can find out what part of the Council is wasteful. I believe with these reforms we could cut the Council budget from just over $3 million to about $1 million by January of 2008.If some of the Common Council’s work is excess and wasteful, how much does that excess and waste really cost us?
You are assuming they do any work in the community I represent. That being said, it is important that we get a program like CitiStat into the City of Buffalo so constituent services can be taken care of by the proper departments rather than expecting the Coucilmember to address them. If we had CitiStat we could eventually go to a part time Council.If we cut some Common Council members and their staffs, how much will have to be added to the staffs of other Common Council members to do the work that those people we just fired were doing?
The at-large offices are the first offices that become beholden to those same interests that they supposedly counter. Take a look at the contribution records of all sitting Councilmembers. See where our donations come from. I can walk the North District in an election year and bring my message to every resident without being reliant on large donors. That is impossible if you are running citywide. You must rely on the same people you are supposed to be checking.Some people say that the four citywide Council members are the city’s only check on the power of the small group of rich white guys with 24/7 access to the mayor’s office and the mayor’s budget. Is that true?
That is, in my opinion, the biggest flaw of the Kenefick Commission and the Charter of the late 1920s. Six at-large offices were added so downtown business interests could direct city government. I believe the downfall of Buffalo began when the neighborhoods became second class.If you are asking about quotas, I would object to them. In a democracy the public votes for who they think will best represent them. I have voted for people based on their platforms and past records regardless of their race, creed or gender. I would oppose a Council that must be 54% white, 37% black, etc.Some people say that the Council should be reduced to match the reduction in the city’s population over the past three or four decades. If they’re right, should that reduction be across the board or should it be refined to match the specific character of the population shift? That is, who left town and who’s still here?
This is a good question but not for the reason asked. Whether a rich white developer or a rich minority developer receives largesse is irrelevant. I doubt either one cares about the community I represent. The problem as I see it is that people in Buffalo, all people in Buffalo, are frustrated. They see our children leaving and our city falling apart and they do not see anyone doing anything to help the situation. They see politicians fighting for power but for what? To rule a dying city?If the cuts are really being proposed for economic reasons, how do they compare to the largesse the mayor’s office bestows on rich white developers, and which kind of spending really does the city more good or less harm?
As I mentioned earlier I supported downsizing in 1998-99 when the at-large were 50-50. In 1999 there were hotly contested races for at-large and president that could have gone either way. My position then was the same as my position now. It is also interesting to note that when the Council was last reduced in the early 1980s there were two white men who lost their positions. There was no outcry then because the voters had spoken. Now the at-large seem to be so important that even God wants them retained!Would we be hearing all this noise about the need for reduction if all the supposedly dispensable offices were currently occupied by white men?
First of all this question assumes James Pitts is the reason for downsizing. The reasons for downsizing are legion. The city of Buffalo is broken. Every person at the July 22 public hearing agreed with that. They said the city was racist, the city was poor, the city’s education system is atrocious, crime is rampant, city services do not work properly, etc. If the city is in bad shape we can not continue as we have and expect things to get better. There needs to be a shake up and this is just one of many that are necessary. The office of Council President at its current expense is not only unnecessary but also wasteful.If James Pitts is the demon some people say, and if getting rid of him is what this is really about, isn’t the way to deal with him by running a candidate for Common Council president in the next election who is not a demon, rather than restructuring city government to eliminate his job description?
In regards to personalities no one person should ever become synonymous with the position. I am North District Councilmember until December 31, 2003. I may or may not choose to run for reelection. The voters may or may not choose to rehire me. I am not North District Councilmember for life. If I was I should immediately be voted out of office.Changing the size of the Common Council will do nothing to change the balance of power in city government. By changing the accountability of the Councilmember I believe they will become more influential because they will be respected for doing their job. If the city turns around, and it will not unless things change, the restructured Council will be able to take credit for it.What would reducing the size and changing the accountability of the Common Council do to the balance of power in city government?
If the ballot referendum passes in November the position of Council President will continue in its current form until December 31, 2003. During the Council reorganization meeting the new council would elect, from within, a new Council President. Since the Charter would be amended properly there would no limbo time. As a matter of fact Jim Pitts could still be Council President even when the referendum passes. He could simply run for Delaware District Councilmember and then try to get four of his colleagues to support him.The city’s charter specifies that in the absence of a mayor (through recall or whatever) the president of the Common Council becomes acting mayor until the next election. If we eliminate the job of the Council President will we have to do another charter revision? Can we eliminate the Council President before altering the charter? What happens if the mayor vanishes in that limbo time between when we vote to abolish the job of Council President and write a new city charter that doesn’t specify the various jobs of the Council President?