The crushing defeat of the dissolution proposals in referendums in the villages of Williamsville and Sloan is a blow to the crusade by activist Kevin Gaughan to eliminate a layer of government in Erie County -- something that has not yet succeeded in the county's history.

Tuesday's defeats have some wondering if Gaughan can succeed in dissolving any village.

"During the final weeks of the campaign, it became clear that dissolving village government is a horse of a different color than reducing the number of politicians in town government," Gaughan said Wednesday. "I have some deep thinking to do about the lessons that I learned in Williamsville and Sloan."

Charlie Zettek, director of government management services for the nonprofit Center for Governmental Research based in Rochester, suggests Gaughan will need more than charisma and a message of overtaxation to get voters to fight their natural instincts against change.

His agency has assisted roughly 10 villages throughout the state in developing dissolution plans, and he has seen what works and what doesn't.

Based on that experience, Zettek said, three main factors determine whether voters will approve the dissolution of their government:

* Elected and/or community leadership that favors making a change.

* A clear vision of how things will be better for village residents and their way of life if dissolution occurs.

* Large tax savings that are understood by everybody.

"The tax savings piece is very important, but not critical," Zettek said. "If all you have is tax savings, it's still hard for people to see why they should give up what they're used to having, but if leadership provides a vision as to how things could be better as a result of this, you give people a more emotional desire to do this."

While Gaughan may be considered a leader on Town Board downsizing, many voters described him as "arrogant" and an "outsider" when it came to the dissolution issue. While many respected his mission, others gave him a verbal whipping.

"If you're a student of American history," Gaughan said, "reformers are not the best-treated folks. I was always raised to believe, if you're not controversial, then you're not changing things."

Gaughan said people derided him because they were anti-dissolution, not anti-Gaughan. If people were anti-Gaughan, he said, he never would have gotten five towns to downsize their boards.

The outcome of Tuesday's votes was predicted in May when local political pollster Barry Zeplowitz released a poll showing that 75 percent of Williamsville voters opposed dissolution. When those opposed were asked what would change their minds, 87 percent said: "Nothing."

In the end, 83 percent of Williamsville voters and 81 percent of Sloan voters said they want to keep what they have in the face of the unknown.

"I think what it tells you is that residents value and rely on the essential services provided by villages," said Peter Baynes, executive director of the New York State Council of Mayors. "They aren't willing to abandon those services without fully understanding the alternative."

The state's current law does not require any dissolution plan to be presented to residents before voters are asked whether they want to keep their village government. The Council of Mayors wants that changed so a plan is presented before voters cast ballots.

But even if there were such a plan, it's no guarantee that residents would support the elimination of their government.

"I think there would have been a little more support if there had been a plan, but I think ultimately, people are happy with the village and wouldn't vote to have it dissolved under any circumstances," said Amy Alexander, head of the Friends of the Village of Williamsville.

Tammy Bayes, head of the Village of Sloan Citizens Study Group, said she is not sure what would make enough voters decide that dissolution is a good idea.

"I think there would have had to be a tremendous savings of money," she said. "We are currently paying less in taxes. So when somebody says, 'You're going to save a lot in taxes,' we didn't see that."

Even if there was a big tax savings, she said, "you have to take into account our feeling of community, our services. I don't think even with an exorbitant amount of savings, that would be a definite tipper."

Zettek agrees and cites the Village of Seneca Falls as a good example.

Gaughan's public presentations highlighted this 6,700-population village in the Finger Lakes, which approved dissolution in March. Known as the birthplace of women's right to vote, Seneca Falls is the largest village in the state to have approved dissolution.

Seneca Falls had been investigating the possibility of dissolving since 2006. Some village trustees and community members sanctioned the dissolution process and commissioned three different studies on the matter.

The most comprehensive study, produced by the Center for Governmental Research and released in November, was 50 pages long and addressed every issue on the provision of services, the disposition of village assets and debt, and the considerable property tax savings to residents.

The study determined that the average property owner would save $950 a year, Zettek said.

Yet despite all the studies and promised savings, Seneca Falls voters approved village government dissolution by a margin of only 86 votes.

"The tax savings piece is very important, but not critical," Zettek said. "If all you have is tax savings, it's still hard for people to see why they should give up what they're used to having. But if leadership provides a vision as to how things could be better as a result of this, you give people a more emotional desire to do this."

Other small villages in Western New York -- Randolph, East Randolph and Perrysburg in Cattaraugus County -- succeeded in dissolving in March with their leaders' blessings.

Gaughan didn't have that kind of support in Williamsville or Sloan, and he doesn't appear to have it in Farnham, which holds its dissolution referendum Sept. 28. "My thought on this is that there is not going to be tax savings," said Mayor Terry Caber. "There is going to be tax shifting."

Farnham, with an estimated 311 residents, is the smallest village in Erie County. It has two full-time employees and nine part-time employees, including the mayor and four trustees.

But both Gaughan and Caber agree that Farnham's small size doesn't mean it will be easier to dissolve than the others. "I think it's going to be equally as challenging," Gaughan said.

Caber said, "Residents of Williamsville, Sloan and Farnham all want to know the same things: Will I save any money? Will my taxes be higher or lower? How will my services be affected? Will I still have the same services through the town?"

stan@buffnews.comnull