Peter Cutler, the mayor’s communications man, has accused me several times of being cynical about public servants and government in general. But I’m not, and as evidence I present with great admiration two resolutions considered in the Common Council this past Tuesday.

First was a resolution sponsored by Delaware District Councilmember Mike LoCurto, South District Councilmember Mickey Kearns and Lovejoy District Councilmember Rich Fontana concerning the city’s living wage law and its contracting procedures. The resolution says that the Common Council unanimously passed a living wage law in 1999, and amended it in 2003 and 2007, “as a means to alleviate poverty, reward work, and strengthen Buffalo’s neighborhoods and economy.” The issue of poverty is obviously a sore point, given that Buffalo was recently ranked as the city with the second highest rate of poverty in the country.

The resolution argues that the city consistently violates its own living wage law and permits certain contractors—like Rural Metro—to violate the law as well. The resolution asserts that the city’s contracting procedures are too decentralized and confusing; individual departments do their own purchasing and contracting, which makes the contracts more difficult to scrutinize than they would be if they passed through a single department—where somebody would be able to examine contracts to ensure, for example, that they complied with the city’s living wage law. The city’s currrent contracting processes, the resolution says, “have been subject to abuse, leading to criminal charges and loss of public confidence”—a reference to the scandal that cost former Public Works Commissioner Joe Giambra and his successor Dan Kreuz their jobs. Both the Buffalo Niagara Partnership and the city’s Living Wage Commission—two entities that find little to agree upon—“have called upon the City to centralize contracting processes and make them more transparent, accountable, and fair.”

The resolution continues to note that Buffalo Public School District is not covered by the city’s living wage law, and that more than 1,300 of the district’s employees—98 perecent of whom are city residents—earn less than the living wage, which is $9.59 per hour with health benefits or $10.77 per hour without health benefits. Cafeteria workers make as little as $7.52 per hour—even though the food service program is paid for with federal funds and usually results in a large surplus for the district. (There was a nearly $1 million surplus for 2004-2005.) City Comptroller Andrew SanFilippo has recommended that the school district adopt a living wage policy to bring it in line with the city, which provides the schools with about $70 million per year in tax revenue.

And what is the resolution to this resolution? “That this item is forwarded to an appropriate Committee of the Common Council to discuss the Mayor’s and City Comptroller’s response to this Resolution.”

The cynical conclusion would be: “Oh great. So you resolve to talk about these problems. How about resolving to fix them?” But I’m not a cynic. I give these three credit for raising the issues. Likewise, I give credit to LoCurto for introducing a resolution this week that makes what would seem a rather abvious point. In response to the Public Works scandal, in which Giambra and Kreuz admitted to accepting vacations paid for by city contractors, Mayor Byron Brown wants to create the new position of inspector general, whose job will be to sniff out corruption, fraud and waste in city government. That’s all well and good. But, LoCurto writes, for “the public to have complete confidence in the ability of the Inspector General to conduct investigations, the position must be independent from the Mayor’s office.”

That is, he or she cannot be a mayoral appointee. LoCurto suggests that the inspector general ought to be appointed by and report to the mayor, the city comptroller and the president of the Common Council. The term of appointment should be five years, so that it overlaps the terms of the elected officials to whom the inspector general reports. Those are smart ideas, and important.

By contrast, have a look at North District Councilmember Joe Golombek’s resolutions this week. (I’m picking on Golombek because I expect much more of him than these.) First, “Support for Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.” SBIR is a federal program that requires federal agencies that spend lots of money on private research and development contracts to set aside 2.5 percent of their research and development budgets for small business grants. It’s a way of ensuring that all that federal pork isn’t swallowed up by a handful of giant contractors. SBIR results in nearly $2 billion in small business grants each year, Golombek points out, and in 2006 Buffalo companies received nearly $9 million.

SBIR expires in September 2008, and Congress is considering its renewal—and even contemplating doubling to five percent the amount of an agency’s research and development budget that must be used for small business grants.

So what is Golombek resolving to do about this? He wants Buffalo’s Common Council to resolve that SBIR—over which the Common Council exercises no authority whatsoever—is a good thing and to write a letter encouraging the region’s federal delegation to support its renewal.

Golombek doesn’t usually write many of these meaningless, ineffectual resolutions—it always seems to be LoCurto who is asking the Common Council to resolve that genocide in Darfur is a travesty—so maybe it’s not fair to single him out this week for wasting time when the people’s business is afoot. But, on the other hand, he threw in this idea too: “Utilizing the Buffalo Special Police to Assist With Quality of Life Problems.”

In this resolution, Golombek suggests that the Buffalo Special Police—armed, trained volunteers who patrol some city neighborhoods—be empowered to issue “quality of life tickets” to discourage public drunkenness, unkempt properties and loud music, for example.

At least this issue is in the Common Council’s purview. But in a city whose police force is already disgruntled and undermanned, whose police union is embroiled in a bitter contract dispute, does it seem wise to suggest that volunteers pick up some of the slack that the cops are leaving? Who are the Buffalo Special Police accountable to? What are the liability issues? What would you do if you were whooping it up outside the Sportsmen’s Tavern and someone who was not a cop issued you a ticket?

Think, Joe, think.