Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Signifying Nothing

No Perks for Water Board, Someday

The WBP is officially labeling Maggie Brooks reelection campaign the Sound and Fury Tour 2007.

After grandstanding on the library porn non issue, a ruling by the Supreme Court has already dealt with that, Brooks and Bill "Gosh, I hope Mr. Minarik lets me run for Congress again someday" Smith last night saw the approval of their bill to end health benefits for future Water Board members.

The legislation has no effect unless one of the current members leave, this aspect drew obvious criticism from Democrats during debate yet only one voted in opposition.

According to the Democrat & Chronicle Bill Smith said stopping benefits for current members was not an option:

County officials said they didn't believe they could legally strip the benefits from current Water Authority members. Doing so could lead to costly litigation, warned Majority Leader Bill Smith, R-Pittsford.

"That's a fight I don't think we could win, and even if we did, it would be a joyless victory for the taxpayers who had to pay for it," he said.

Costly litigation? This seems ludicrous until the statement from the Authority spokesman is read:

Clyde Benoy, the authority's vice chairman, said before the vote that he understands the County Legislature's reason for its actions. But he, like the other board members, defended the benefits.

"We earn them," he said. "We run a $60 million corporation, the seven of us."



The people did not elect you Mr. Benoy. You did not earn anything, you were likely awarded your position out of cronyism and this legislation does nothing but further support that view. If you believe your pursuits are so noble open your entity up to public elections and allow the taxpayers to decide your fate, not the Republican party.

The Democrats also disappointed last night. Certainly some reform is better than none, but this bill is essentially nothing. Rather than allow Maggie to pass it through and take credit for changing an unjust system, make efforts to stall the bill and point out the hypocrisy as the 2008 election closes. Given the dynamics of the legislature much more may not have been accomplished but the only real opposition was voiced last night in a forum not necessarily conducive to public awareness.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

As to "The Democrats also disappointed last night" and "should have worked to stall the bill", what the writer fails to recognize is that Maggie HAD the votes...nothing the Dems could do about that. Rather than give her a victory, the Dems worked hard to introduce into the limited media presence is the message that this "reform" was largely a sham. Having the Dems vote against a reform bill, no matter how insignificant, only gives the GOP'ers the opportunity to say that the Dems did not support reform when given the chance. True, everyone in the county needs to be "in the room" when debates like this take place...but the GOP have voted down all access reforms (televised proceedings, internet accessability) that the Dems have tried. DON'T fault the Dems here...they carried out a well prepared discussion of what a sham Maggie's reform really is.

HandsomeSwede said...

"Given the dynamics of the legislature much more may not have been accomplished but the only real opposition was voiced last night"

I understand the GOP majority in the County Leg. I took issue with the lack of outrage, in my perception anyway, expressed by the Dems. We monitor the local media pretty well at the WBP and I do not recall hearing anything from the Dems until last night.

If this "reform was largely a sham" would the GOP really have been able to crticize Dems for voting against it and would the voting public accept and believe the accusations? Sadly, the answer is probably yes given the uninformed nature of the average voter so you may be right on the mark for this one. I always hold out hope, though, that area voters will wake up and not simply accept all the bullshit spewed by the government as truth and good. In such a perfect world the Dems could vote against the bill because it really does nothing and the public would understand that sometimes it is neccesary to vote against things rather than rubber stamp them.

One last note, I believe County Leg meetings are set to begin being broadcast on public access in 2008.

HandsomeSwede said...

One more thing -
It is also difficult to differentiate between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys sometimes:

From the D&C

"Ted O'Brien, D-Irondequoit, abstained because his law firm is doing work for the authority."