An Unnecessary Drag on Workers

I’m going to start smoking just to make sure I can never work for Amherst. I don’t know if my broad skill set ranging from a mediocre typing speed to the principled unwillingness to steal co-workers’ lunches from the break room fridge would make me eligible for town employment. Nonetheless, I’d like to do everything possible to disqualify myself from ever working for minor-league health fascists:

If you smoke, you might not be hired to work for the town of Amherst. At least, it’s something board members voted to officially look into in a 4-2 vote Monday night.

Attorneys and human resources will look into whether it’s legal and practical to try to hire only non-smokers.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the unhealthy habits of employees,” said Mark Manna (D-Town Board).

The town’s potential scheme puts a fairly large pool of job seekers in a bind. Even smoking Tea Partiers who feel reflexively averse to bureaucratic employment might wish to quit so they may keep employment options open. After all, Obamanomics is ensuring that the government is the source of many jobs and most of the good ones. But it’s better to remain broke than let a job boss you around during off hours. Now, will the smoker-free work zone actually happen?

Dr. Barry Weinstein (R), Town Supervisor-Elect and a medical doctor believes it may also be the town’s choice when hiring new employees.

“Is this a slippery slope, if you say we’re not going to hire smokers is the next step, we’re not going to hire people who are overweight or eat at McDonald’s or things like that?” Kristin Donnelly asks.

“It is a slippery slope… and that’s why we’re studying it. We have not made a proposal to do anything,” Weinstein answers.

We should extend cheers to Donnelly for asking a fundamentally necessary question about the concept’s chief shortcoming. She further astutely uncovered counselors who point out legal troubles with the proposal. As someone who can say things attorneys can’t, I’d like to additionally underscore that Amherst’s discussed plot is restrictive junk that would shamefully disqualify the qualified simply for puffing away their free time.

The problem with considering it is that Amherst is considering it. The mere existence of the idea that would prohibit hiring workers engaging in a legal activity is a galling affront to personal rights. The proponents claim it will save the town money on insurance. But that’s in fact an argument to let individuals buy health care on their own. That approach would save Amherst, and every other public and private employer, quite a sum.

Until then, the town is considering potentially discriminating against the wrong workers. Amherst should prefer a smoker who walks to work versus a non-tobacco user who helps clog the Tim Hortons drive-thru line every morning while acquiring a quadruple quadruple.

Massive guts may be worse than charcoal lungs. But it’s easier to just bully smokers. For one, they don’t fight back for long on account of breath shortage. More importantly, the town can get away with contemplating whether they may disqualify applicants based on a lifestyle choice that results in a little gratification: giving smokers grief is one of the last acceptable forms of bias among those who tolerate every other lifestyle choice imaginable. The excessively broadminded are curiously fine with banishing smokers either outdoors or possibly off the payroll.

But we should prefer smoking workers. They’re more relaxed and therefore extra productive, not to mention that they’re much, much cooler than non-inhaling squares. In the meantime, tobacco users should just switch to chew if this suggested policy becomes law. It’s a fun loophole that will get even better once indulgers sue for the right to have spittoons installed in the office. Amherst officials who floated the anti-smoking concept deserve both the headache and mess.

Hope for Non-NY 23 Conservatives

Imagine if the National Republican Congressional Committee had supported Doug Hoffman from the start.  Instead of throwing money at a left-winger who remained on the ballot after she quit and repaid the organization by endorsing her erstwhile Democratic foe, Hoffman would be running for re-election in 2010 instead of aiming to win a rematch.

Instead, the NRCC wasn’t lucky enough to blunder into victory.  Their failure to inadvertently execute a New Coke/Coke Classic-type success should guide every decision they make through the same Tuesday of next year.  That includes their tactics across the nation in general and within Hoffman’s state in particular.  New York’s conservatives are entitled to feel that his respectable showing should inspire similar candidates who can carpool with him to Washington.  Can both Hoffman and Hoffman-types across upstate win House seats in 2010?

If nothing else, unabashed conservatives might do better than the liberal-leaning moderates indigenous to this region.  This is an opportune moment for the Republican Party to field limited-government candidates.  Based on the national mood, it might pay off in the ballot booths, or at least between the cardboard dividers.

That’s especially if unemployment continues to hover around 10 percent, the war in Afghanistan remains muddled, and two branches of the government join to see if they can spend 100 jillion dollars combined on nationalized health and carbon usage fines.  Voters are looking for genuine conservatives as a welcome alternative to Scozzafava-style stimulus supporters.

There’s no reason to keep inflicting Rockefeller Republicans upon the nation.  Party leaders may as well try to capitalize on the nation’s rising small-government sympathies.  It’s not like the state GOP should worry they might lose even more House elections.

There are formidable obstacles aside from standard concerns regarding whether true-right candidates are viable in the particular districts of a navy state like New York blah blah blah.  For one, there’s the reality that certain Congressional districts are shaped like crescents, not circles.

While the right to a district that’s wider than a two-lane road does not appear in the Constitution, representatives such as Louise Slaughter should nonetheless have to face a more naturally-shaped territory.  Standing opposed to alignments that keep incumbents safe is not a matter of supporting one party or the other: it’s about encouraging circumstances that allow citizens to enjoy a clear choice between the two.  That desirable situation is one not always seen locally for various reasons.

Additionally, Western New Yorkers who seek conservative options could use a slightly less disingenuous local paper.  Specifically, it would be nice to not endure condescending lectures from Buffalo News editor Margaret Sullivan, who has been the paper’s funniest writer ever since Dave Barry stopped contributing his syndicated column.  Her latest gem claims that editorial positions are staffed by reactionaries who will camp out to get the earliest available copies of Sarah Palin’s book from Walmart:

In the 10 active County Legislature races, we are endorsing eight Republicans and two Democrats.

 

In the Amherst supervisor’s race, we are endorsing a Republican, Barry Weinstein.

It’s not a Republican quota: please refer to it as conservative affirmative action.  And they’re not even done acting like tea partiers:

And in the two countywide races, we are endorsing one Republican and one Democrat: respectively, Philip Kadet for comptroller and John Glascott for sheriff.

 

So, of the 13 endorsements we’ll make this year, 10 go to Republicans.

Yep, endorsing a Republican for Erie County Comptroller balances out their last pick for President of the United States of America.  And random probability explains how they also happened to back Democrats in each of the four local House of Representative races in 2008.

The paper’s staff apparently forgot to pretend that they were balanced last year.  But things are different now, sort of.  By standing behind 77 percent of Republicans in local elections during an off year, Sullivan is claiming 10 pennies are worth more than five dimes.  That helps explain why their coverage of economic issues is so rotten.

If the News really wanted to come across as impartial, they could stop injecting left-wing junk into news stories.  They could even hire a second Republican.

Even without media assistance, the party ought to finally have the sense and conviction to represent conservative ideals.  Who knows?  Republicans might come across a principled opponent for Slaughter who doesn’t get, well, a synonym for “slaughtered.”

It would also be nice if Brian Higgins had to face an outright limited government advocate, if only for the prospect of forcing the present representative to get a private sector job.  There’s a first time for everything.  Either way, Hoffman shouldn’t have to go it alone next year.

Robert Simmons Endorses Jay Anderson for Amherst Town Board

The Buffalo Bean has acquired a letter from Robert Simmons, Past Conservative Party Town Chair for 30 years in Amherst, on behalf of Amherst Town Board candidate, Richard “Jay” Anderson. We have posted it below:

Dear Fellow Conservative;

This year’s election for the Amherst Town Board will determine the future direction of our town for many years to come.  As we have experienced the past few years, the current town board is full of bickering, petty politics and members with little regard for us, the taxpayers.

As a registered Conservative Party member for over 40 years and former Conservative Town Chairman for over 30 years, I am supporting Richard “Jay” Anderson for the Amherst Town Board; to bring integrity, common sense and a fiscally conservative approach to Town finances.

Jay is a lifelong resident of Amherst, a graduate of St. Joseph’s Collegiate Institute and Canisius College, has work experience in the private sector and is an officer in the Amherst Masonic Lodge.  Jay is a military veteran and served active duty in the Middle East last year with his Navy unit, and is continuing to serve as a Navy reservist.  

Jay’s goals are lowering taxes through efficient, effective government services, providing a fairer assessment review and reform process and establishing a referendum that gives voters the option on the size of the Town Board.  The incumbent Board member running against Jay, actually voted three times to deny voters their right to such a referendum.

Since its inception; the Conservative Party has stood for public referendums, lower taxes and limited government.  Jay’s incumbent opponent has voted against all of these, and Jay has pledged to support all of them.  Unfortunately some liberal minded individuals have infiltrated the Conservative Party and Jay did not receive their endorsement.  That is why I write to you and urge you to vote for Jay Anderson on the Republican line.  I have not done this in the past, but feel this year’s election is critical and there is a clear choice for Conservatives to vote for Jay.  I am confident he will support our conservative ideals and be a taxpayer’s friend on the Town Board.

It is time for a fresh approach for Amherst Town government!  It is time for the taxpayers to be heard!  It is time for registered Conservatives to have a truly conservative Town Board member!  It is time to send the message that we are fed up with big government!  It is time for our own tea party!

Please join with me and vote for Richard “Jay” Anderson for the Town Board on November 3rd.

Sincerely,
 
 

Robert C. Simmons
Past Conservative Party Town Chair

Guest Post: Steve Sanders for Amherst Town Board

To hear people speak at the town board meeting last Monday night, one would think that everyone in the Town of Amherst would like to see property taxes go up so that we don’t have to lay off any employees.  I am mindful of the effects of layoffs on employees and their families.  Any proposal that affects a person’s livelihood must not be taken lightly.  While I am greatly concerned about the effect on services if the originally proposed cuts were made, I am equally concerned about keeping taxes at a reasonable level.  I believe that there are many residents of Amherst who think that their taxes are too high already and want to see budget cuts made so that taxes don’t rise.

Now, I know that I can’t have it both ways.  I can’t, under the current circumstances, both keep taxes down and continue the current level of services.  I am prepared to accept a small tax increase this year to make sure that the streets are still plowed, the leaves are still collected and the police remain on the beat.  But I believe that with some corrections to the budget process, reform of how the town government operates and more competitive bidding of goods and services purchased by the town, we can avoid tax increases for the next four years.

In fact, as a candidate for Amherst Town Board, I am prepared to go on the record, refusing to vote for a tax increase for the next four years if that is what the residents of this town really want.  To express this approval, all they have to do is vote for me as well as other candidates willing to make a similar commitment.  I believe that with a more professional board, we can make improvements to our town that will save money in the short term and more importantly the long term.  Here are a few of the ideas (not necessarily all my own) I would like to see implemented to achieve those goals:

• Start the budget process in January.  Current councilmember, Mark Manna, once told me that everything else you do as a board member is just a prelude to the budget.  Since this is the most important role of the board, then they should be working on it all year long.  The Supervisor should not be left to craft the budget by himself.  The board members, as liaisons to the different departments, should play an integral role in the development of the budget.  More communication between the board and the departments will greatly increase the odds of uncovering opportunities to decrease costs or increase revenues.
• Make sure that all departments are taking full advantage of the Purchasing Department.  We need to make sure that we are getting the best prices on all purchased goods and services.  The post of Purchasing Director was created to save the Town money, so let’s make sure that he is being utilized to the absolute fullest.
• Carefully analyze all services provided by the Town.  We need to make sure that the Town is not involved in activities better suited to private businesses and that the services provided are provided at competitive costs.  This is probably the trickiest of them all.  You can’t just look at the revenue and expenses related to each activity. You must consider the intangible benefits of having the service performed by the Town, the fixed costs that won’t go away even if you stop providing the service, the indirect costs to other departments that relied on the service, etc.  This requires significant understanding of cost accounting and budgeting.  I expect that this analysis will uncover cost savings through more sharing of services between departments and other municipalities, or possibly even the merger of departments or, dare I say, municipalities.
• Take into account the effect of current events on long term budgeting.  The Town does not operate in a vacuum.  When the economy slowed down last year, the Supervisor should have expected that sales tax revenue and building permit revenue would have dropped as well.  Furthermore, when the stock market crashed, the Supervisor should have realized that the Pension fund would take a huge hit which would result in a much larger required contribution from the Town than previously budgeted.  These should not have been surprises to the Supervisor when making this year’s budget.  Anticipating that expenses would jump should encourage the board to be more prudent in their current spending.
• Plan for the future.  When budgeting gets tight, it is very easy to slash the repairs & maintenance and capital improvement budgets.  Similarly, it is easy to lease equipment rather than buy it so the current year budget only has to absorb the lease payment rather than the full purchase price.  However, in many cases, these are painfully short-sighted decisions.  Every budgeting decision made by the Town should be considered on a net present value basis.  This ensures that we consider the long-term ramifications of our decisions.  To aid in planning for the future, I would like to see the Town of Amherst establish a Budget Committee of professionals to assist the board in making budgeting decisions.

I am sure that many of the other candidates have similar ideas and goals. My question is, who do you trust most to implement these ideas?  I submit to you that a Certified Public Accountant who understands Financial Statements, Budgeting, Tax Policy, Internal Controls, Business Management, and is trusted by hundreds of clients with their most personal financial information, is ideally suited to fulfill this mission.

If you agree with me and are registered to vote in the Town of Amherst, then please commit to voting for me on November 3^rd, telling two more people about me and committing them to tell two more people and so on.  If you are not registered to vote in Amherst but like my message, then please pass it on to two more people.  With less than two weeks left to go, we have to get the word out that Amherst does not have to operate business as usual with the constant threat of higher taxes or reduced services.  A proactive board with a fresh perspective can make changes that will help improve the Town for years to come.  Please help elect me to that board.  Thank you.

Written by guest blogger Steve Sanders, candidate for Amherst Town Board.

Join the official Sanders for Amherst Facebook group.

A Local Supporter of Rotten School Policy

There’s no reason to accept zero-tolerance. Treating every object with an edge as a weapon displays an utter lack of common sense, which sadly and predictably explains why such policies are being enforced in many public school systems.

One young man suffering from such grade school campus lunacy is six-year-old Zachary Christie of Newark, Delaware. The New York Times explains why he faced banishment to reform school for planning or committing exactly zero harm:

Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a knife, fork and spoon to school. He was so excited about recently joining the Cub Scouts that he wanted to use it at lunch. School officials concluded that he had violated their zero-tolerance policy on weapons, and Zachary was suspended and now faces 45 days in the district’s reform school.

Maybe they were punishing Zachary for being affiliated with a patriarchal, homophobic, paramilitary organization like Scouting. Nonetheless, America’s most prominent rag expresses doubts about the wholesale prohibition of any implement that could ever be considered dangerous at any moment:

But the question on the minds of residents here is: Why do school officials not have more discretion in such cases?

Said question is a particularly good one to ask, especially considering that we already send children to school armed with compasses, sharpened pencils, and correction fluid whose fumes could knock out a water buffalo. In that vein, a school official endorsed the rule while noting that they may change it:

“There is no parent who wants to get a phone call where they hear that their child no longer has two good seeing eyes because there was a scuffle and someone pulled out a knife,” said George Evans, the president of (Zachary’s) district’s school board. He defended the decision, but added that the board might adjust the rules when it comes to younger children like Zachary.

In fact, the board has since hastily voted to reduce punishments for young kids; they’ll now face a three-to-five day suspension. That’s better, if only because it slightly scales back the mindlessness. The original article points out that inflexible bans are wrong for so many reasons:

Critics contend that zero-tolerance policies like those in the Christina district have led to sharp increases in suspensions and expulsions, often putting children on the streets or in other places where their behavior only worsens, and that the policies undermine the ability of school officials to use common sense in handling minor infractions.

That said, the paper still found a way to use liberal guilt as evidence against the regulations:

Many studies indicate that African-Americans were several times more likely to be suspended or expelled than other students for the same offenses.

Of course, those suspensions could be taking place in urban schools where violence is a more immediate concern, which would minimize race as a factor in the differing rates. Nonetheless, conservatives and liberals both have reasons for opposing the mechanical rules. On top of that, libertarians and reasonable independents who form opinions on respective case’s merits are on board, too.

That’s almost everyone. So, where did the Times reporter find someone for the sake of balance who concurs with an autocratic policy that treats a Cub Scout utensil as a deadly weapon? How about at a legal school in Amherst?

Charles P. Ewing, a professor of law and psychology at the University at Buffalo Law School who has written about school safety issues, said he favored a strict zero-tolerance approach.

“There are still serious threats every day in schools,” Dr. Ewing said, adding that giving school officials discretion holds the potential for discrimination and requires the kind of threat assessments that only law enforcement is equipped to make.

Would the Doctor like to explain that theory to Zachary? In summary, he’s claiming there’s nothing more dangerous than permitting teachers or principals to think about what they’re doing.

It used to be that “giving school officials discretion” was the basis of the job description. But that’s apparently no longer applicable. Today, they’re merely androids programmed only to operate rubber stamps inked with either the word “SUSPENDED” or “EXPELLED.” On the plus side, we can probably reduce their pay considering their obvious lack of responsibility.

The professor fears judgment calls made by those who actually interact with students. By contrast, he thinks he’s better suited to issue blanket school guidelines from a North Campus office. Bad policy paired with arrogance leads to, well, the pronouncements gathered by the NYT reporter.

It’s not bad enough that this is the sort of opinion held by someone training the next generation of attorneys. Worse, taxpayers are sponsoring it. That’s why UB Law School tuition is a bargain compared to, for example, a nearby private option.

The next time the state budget process begins, certain politicians and regular citizens whose bleeding hearts resemble crime scenes will invariably argue that we must increase funding for public universities above the inflation rate. They’ll proclaim that any conservative who stands in opposition hates education, wants to deny opportunities to underprivileged young people, and is probably also a bigot for some reason.

But those on the right can advance their case merely by repeating the UB teacher’s remarks. They serve as Exhibit A in the case against subsidizing higher education, especially if they’re indicative in any way of UB law’s general instructional environment. Tax dollars shouldn’t be used to fill law students’ skulls with mush. Anyone who wants to learn from lecturers such as Ewing ought to pay their own way. There should be zero tolerance for any other approach; the professor will surely appreciate the principle behind such a guideline.

Letter From Jay Anderson To Amherst Residents

The Buffalo Bean has received a letter from Jay Anderson, candidate for Amherst Town Board, to the residents of Amherst.

Dear Amherst residents:

I wish to thank the Amherst Republican Committee for their vote of confidence in nominating me as one of their candidates for the Amherst Town Board. I am deeply honored. I pledge to all Amherst residents to run an honest and issue oriented campaign.

I am also seeking the Conservative and Independence Party endorsements. My philosophy is to represent the taxpayers with diligence and dedication to eliminate government interference in our private lives and to assure stringent fiscal responsibility.

My goal as an Amherst Council member will be to build our community by encouraging productivity and incentive, to recognize and strengthen the importance of the family unit, ease the burden on the taxpayers and to assure that the Town exercises restraint and accountability in its fiscal policies.

Amherst residents can be assured that my public service interests are sincere and deep rooted. For over twenty years I have been instilled with a sense of duty and determination in restoring the quality of life Amherst residents deserve. My dad, Rick Anderson, while serving in the County Legislature and State Assembly; taught me that taxpayers deserve quality services at the lowest taxes possible. I am committed to ensure that Amherst Town government be cost efficient, through proven management techniques, cost containment measures and common sense. 

Amherst has been the chosen home of thousands of families due to our great quality of life. In 1954 my grandparents moved to Amherst and I was born here at Millard Suburban Hospital. One of my goals as a Town council member is to provide a town environment that will continue to attract and retain residents.

I am confident that the excellent slate of Republican candidates can, and will, work together to restore a Town government we can all be proud of. I am pledged to cost efficiency, lower taxes, smart redevelopment and a voter referendum on the size of the Town Board.

Richard (Jay) Anderson

You can show your support for Jay Anderson’s campaign on Facebook here.