Government Waste
Lancaster Civil Lawsuit: Part 7: Double-speak, selective amnesia and denial
By Lee Chowaniec
Nov 27, 2005, 11:08

Up to now, the lawsuit series has concerned itself with the purchase of the 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft) building and the associated costs with determining realistic monetary expenditures to accompany needs, rather than satisfying everyone’s wish list. It is now fitting to examine the player roles in the process - namely, Town Board members.

It has never been the writer's intent to denigrate or assail any individual involved. Outside for mentioning Supervisor Robert Giza by name, no names have been used or will be in future editorials.

However, deposition commentary will be published to exemplify how convoluted the process was and how the Board members tried to distance themselves from the project.

Several Board members stated their decision to vote yes on the resolution to enter into contract for purchase, and later for bonding, was based on the testimony of others; others here denoting non Board members. They were told, “it was a good deal.” That seemed to ge good enough reason to vote for the purchase of the building.

They had not involved themselves with investigative analysis on property value or renovation costs prior to building purchase or before the initial Clough Harbour &Associates (CHA) was started or completed.

Board members remembered approving the April 7, 2003 resolution permitting the Supervisor to enter into a contract with Colecraft to purchase the 3949 Walden Avenue building. Yet, they are unable to explain why the Supervisor signed the contract agreement authorizing town purchase of the building before the Board authorized him to do so (by resolution).

Several Board members did not recall that at the May 12, 2003 impromptu meeting with the Village Board, the Supervisor had stated that the town had an “option” to buy the building. By May 12th, the contract contingencies pursuant to purchase and sale of the building were satisfied. It was indeed the town’s building already.

When asked by the plaintiff's attorney why then was the Trautman feasibility study performed at a cost of $15,000, a Board member replied, “Because someone suggested it.” Under further questioning, this individual denied knowing of any other contingency in the contract that could halt the purchase, but followed up saying that unfavorable Trautman feasibility study results could stop the purchase.

NOTE: The Trautman Associates feasibility study was ordered to analyze which of three buildings best suited housing the police and courts – 3949 Walden Avenue (Colecraft) building / Village Municipal Building / new build.

A few minutes later the Plaintiff’s attorney asked the same Board member, “Is there any reason the Trautman study could have halted the sale from going through,” the Board member responded, “I don’t know of any.” This is a perfect example of contradiction, or worse.

Several Board members indicated that the Trautman feasibility study was necessary. It would prove the 3949 Walden Avenue building was the best location. However, they did not recall whether the Village, the public or anyone, ever reviewed the completed Trautman study.

Town deception

When Clough Harbour & Associates was hired on October 18, 2004 to evaluate the Trautman schematic design study and suggest ways of lowering the build out costs, the resolution presented and approved by the Board was cryptically written so that a non Board member would not understand the content.

The Trautman Associates name was not used in the resolution. Instead, it was referred to as a “project program previously submitted to the Board”. Under questioning by the Plaintiff’s attorney a council member agreed it was for another schematic design study – by CHA to lower the costs presented in the Trautman study.

The public need not know

When a Board member was questioned as to whether the public was made aware that the Town was willing to spend $7 to $8 million on this project, or more, the Board member answered that it was discussed among Board members but can’t recall whether it was ever discussed at the work session (a meeting that takes place before the regular meeting).

According to discovery, the public never received the results of the 2003 Trautman feasibility study, the 2004 Trautman schematic design study or the CHA evaluation report results.

When a Board member was asked whether he believed it was his responsibility, legally and morally, to inform the public of a plan to spend $5 to $6 million (at minimum) of taxpayer money and to involve them in the process, the individual responded, “I don’t believe I have a legal, ethical or moral obligation to. I believe I was acting responsibly.”

“When we arrive at a final decision, we will have to make a resolution and it would be discussed formally,” said the same Board member. Right! By that time, the public will have had no input in the process and as happens too frequently, a resolution will be on the same agenda to approve the Board's decision. Input at a public hearing will have no impact. Once again, “The public be damned!”

A Board member was unable to recall if he was ever on the Public Safety Committee. Yet this individual’s name appears numerous times on schematic design study documents from consultants (Trautman & CHA), thereby indicating he was the designated authority for the Public Safety Committee on the project.

This same Board member declared that, “it was the Supervisor who was getting most of the information.”

This same individual who seconds earlier testified that he did not deem it necessary to do a feasibility study on the building prior to purchase, recants under questioning and agrees with the Plaintiff’s attorney that as an elected official of the Town he indeed did have a duty to investigate to the best of his ability circumstances of the purchase of a piece of property prior to the Supervisor entering into an agreement to purchase the 3949 Walden Avenue building.

When questioned as to the public’s involvement in the process, this same Board member stated that “stuff” might have come up at the work session. Well, the public in not allowed speaking at the work session. When asking about taxpayer concerns arising, the attorney was told, “There are concerns about everything we do. That’s just the general public.

Another Board member is shown videotape where that individual is present for the May 12, 2005 meeting with the Village Board. This individual doesn’t recall the meeting or anything about it. Denies being on the Public Safety Committee and later admits all Town Board members serve on the Public Safety Committee in some capacity.

It just goes on and on. However, one last irksome statement that was made by the Supervisor should be considered. When deposed, he refers to the few interested residents who visited the 3949 Walden Avenue building (at the Supervisors invite), as “gadflies”.

A gadfly is described as persistent irritating critic, a nuisance. In the eyes of a politician a concerned citizen or an activist is considered a pest. He or she (politician) is being held accountable by an elective body of members who should be considered his peers, but are not.

They just don’t like that idea, peers. Once elected they choose to say, “I have a mandate”, and too often act in their own best interests to further their agendas and political careers. Once again, the Supervisor disrespects his residents.


NEXT: Part 8: Who’s paying the bills?



© Copyright 2003 by Speakupwny.com