The Buffalo Common Council may receive a long-overdue facelift in January of 2004. According to the Buffalo News, Federal Court Judge John T. Curtin has ruled in favor of a plan that would allow a referendum to be put on the ballot in November, which, if passed, will reduce the number of elected seats on the council from 14 to nine.
The proposal to eliminate seats has been received with both support and opposition, as was the Council's plan to redraw district lines. Despite charges of racism from within the council, it is likely the proposal will pass. The responsibility to then redistrict fairly, making sure than no group is left at an unwarranted disadvantage, falls on public officials.
Currently, the council consists of nine members elected directly from the districts, three "at large" members that represent the city as a whole, and the council president. The seat of the president and the at large seats are those being considered for removal.
Allegations of racism pervade the debate over both the reduction in seats and the redistricting that will ensue. African-Americans occupy three of the four seats up for removal. One of these three is the seat of the president, James W. Pitts. Pitts' attorney, Edward C. Cosgrove, says the proposal is flawed.
Pitts is one of the main voices behind the charges of racism; his argument, however, is moot and has no bearing on whether the referendum will be passed. Race is an easy card to play when one's job is on the line, and it is evident that those in the most desperate political positions will use it whenever it suits their interests, whether the charge applies.
When the council voted on the downsizing, six members voted against it and seven were in favor. The six opposed are all African-American. They believe this move "dilutes" the minority vote, since it eliminates four seats not constrained by district guidelines, which can boost representation of minority communities beyond that of their population's proportion to the whole.
The fact is that these seats are not reserved for minority representation and are, in fact, responsible for diluting the integrity of the council as a whole, as well as the individual constituencies. It is now the job of Pitts as well as the rest of the Council to act responsibly in their alterations.
Opponents of downsizing seem not to recognize the effect losing half its population in nearly 50 years has had on Buffalo. They also fail to see that in a city riddled with debt, their Council is siphoning much-needed funds from other projects. Presently, the city cannot afford to subsidize four unnecessary politicians, each of which has an individual staff.
Even if Council members do not approve of the measure, which diminishes their body in numbers, a referendum will allow Buffalo's citizens to vote on the proposal. Any member, regardless of his or her position on the matter, may attempt to influence their constituents, be they citywide or district specific, to vote in the way they see fit.
Furthermore, an elected official cannot oppose a referendum that limits politicians without running the risk of appearing undemocratic and out of touch with their constituency. Any legislative member must submit to the will of the people, and should the will of the people be to downsize representation, that option should be available. Those that support such a move should not be called racists because of their support.
Buffalo has a great opportunity to trim the fat of bureaucracy; this is a chance to make government both more efficient and more equitable. If these politicians can act in a manner that is in the best interests of the people of the city instead of in their own best interest, then perhaps Buffalo will be able to start down the road to recovery.
