Lancaster Bee – where’s the beef

[Lee Chowaniec]

After listening to two hours and forty minutes of Monday evening’s town board work session and regular board meeting recordings, I found it surprising that the Bee reporter found the Prairie Landing subdivision street lighting issue (lack of) to be the feature report articles. No denying the importance and an issue that has plagued numerous subdivisions over the years and should be addressed in the Master Plan with updated code language' but...

Several meeting attendees also spoke on traffic, traffic safety, zoning, flooding and drainage issues and other environmental concerns – issues that have plagued the town for years. While these issues were commented on at the meeting and gives the town board members food for thought, hopefully these same individuals appear at the next public meeting on the new comprehensive master plan that is scheduled for September 14 @ 7:00 pm, at the Depew Senior center.
The town is well aware of the traffic, infrastructure, environmental and zoning issues and has an upcoming opportunity to make master plan changes that will address such issues. For some to think that the town can correct retro issues, forgidaboudit.

It is unfortunate that Bee priorities and/or lack of ink space precludes it from covering several stories that some interested in politics (especially with the budget looming and the upcoming election primaries and town election) would like to hear and form opinions on – like:

• Like the Town Recreation Commission attending the work session and petitioning for a full time (paid) Recreation Commissioner; and their support for a William Street / Lake Avenue 42 acre town park with multiple playing fields, playground, track, etc.

Residents questioning/commenting the town board on:

• The town’s public presentation date on the upcoming budget proposal; state tax cap levy, and why the town voted so early to approve a resolution to allow it to override the tax cap limit. While council member Ruffino voted ‘no’ to the override resolution, councilman Matt Walter voiced that while the board at the present time had no intent to exceed the tax cap, the board did not want to be handcuffed should the reason arrive to override the limit.

• Why the sole applicant to fill a Zoning Board of Appeals vacant position was found unqualified – where council member Ron Ruffino could not get a second motion to approve a resolution for the applicants hiring.

• The discussion on building a football field house for storing equipment at Walden Pond or at Dawson Field should it be purchased.

• Timeframe for placing the town meeting recordings on the website

Interesting also was the unanswered reason(s) why councilman Ruffino was unable to get a second motion for resolution #22 – Enact process regarding outside council (Authorization from the Town Attorney, or designee, must be obtained prior to any council member, department head, employee, or representative contacting outside counsel on behalf of Town matters).

Thanks again, Gorja, for posting the recordings. It is a great step in the direction of openness and transparency and allows for people who do not, or cannot, stay informed on town operations.

[gorja]

Originally posted by Lee Chowaniec:
Interesting also was the unanswered reason(s) why councilman Ruffino was unable to get a second motion for resolution #22 – Enact process regarding outside council (Authorization from the Town Attorney, or designee, must be obtained prior to any council member, department head, employee, or representative contacting outside counsel on behalf of Town matters).

IMO, the supervisor nixed that resolution in the work session and the followers followed suit kind of like the Stepford wives.

Thanks again, Gorja, for posting the recordings

Hoping the temperature cools down so there's not so much background noise on the recording from the A/C in the board room. Of course, if the A/C wasn't on, I wouldn't have lasted 2 hours myself. The work session room is a hotbox but less background noise.

[Greg Sojka]

Not hiring the only applicant that applied for the posted position was a slap in the face . Deb does not fit their agenda. Let us remember the hiring of Tom Irish for Lancaster , he was not the one recommended, others were never called for an interview , and the head of the department said he did not want anyone hired. It did not matter they hired him any way.
In November remember IT IS BROKE and needs new blood and new ideas . Any less is the definition of insanity . I hope more people show up at the next meeting and get involved.

[dtwarren]

Interesting also was the unanswered reason(s) why councilman Ruffino was unable to get a second motion for resolution #22 – Enact process regarding outside council (Authorization from the Town Attorney, or designee, must be obtained prior to any council member, department head, employee, or representative contacting outside counsel on behalf of Town matters).

It is already the law that absent a conflict of interest involving the Town Attorney that anyone acting on behalf of the town obtain the approval of the Town Board to retain outside counsel. I think it may be improper for the Town Board to delegate this duty to the Town Attorney.

[mark blazejewski]

It is unfortunate that Bee priorities and/or lack of ink space precludes it from covering several stories that some interested in politics (especially with the budget looming and the upcoming election primaries and town election) would like to hear and form opinions

In "The Bee's" worldview, stories other than "feel good" news supporting their rather obvious agenda(s) and inclinations, would require the hiring a foreign correspondent.

[Lee Chowaniec]

It is already the law that absent a conflict of interest involving the Town Attorney that anyone acting on behalf of the town obtain the approval of the Town Board to retain outside counsel. I think it may be improper for the Town Board to delegate this duty to the Town Attorney.

My understanding is that the process in place is not being challenged, it is simply to ensure that outside legal council is only sought when the Town appointed legal council (Town Attorney) is unable to perform the task at hand; thereby saving the expense of contracting outside council - saving taxpayer dollars.

[dtwarren]

My understanding is that the process in place is not being challenged, it is simply to ensure that outside legal council is only sought when the Town appointed legal council (Town Attorney) is unable to perform the task at hand; thereby saving the expense of contracting outside council - saving taxpayer dollars.

Wouldn't that be a superfluous process then?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Wouldn't that be a superfluous process then?

I wouldn’t think it superfluous if indeed outside council is being retained at the ridiculous hourly rates they now receive when in fact the town attorney can handle the issue.

If Ruffino’s resolution intent was in that direction, namely to save town taxpayers money, then he should be recognized for fiscal responsibility.

If the other four members thought otherwise, someone owned the public an explanation why they sat silent and refused to second the motion; they have all been chirping quite a bit on many other vote reasons. And, their silence to not second the motion is analogous to considering the resolution and voting ‘no’. Child’s play, IM0.

And D.T., what is wrong with a system of checks and balances where no cost increase occurs?

[dtwarren]

Lee,

I think you are missing the point, it is the job of the Town Board to appoint outside counsel, not the Town Attorney or anyone else. Special Counsel retained by anyone other than the Town Board is not authorized to appear on behalf of the Town or town Officer. By delegating that to the Town Attorney you are eliminating the checks and balances. Also I do not think it is lawful for the Town Board to delegate to anyone their statutory duty.

[gorja]

Lee,

I think you are missing the point, it is the job of the Town Board to appoint outside counsel, not the Town Attorney or anyone else. Special Counsel retained by anyone other than the Town Board is not authorized to appear on behalf of the Town or town Officer. By delegating that to the Town Attorney you are eliminating the checks and balances. Also I do not think it is lawful for the Town Board to delegate to anyone their statutory duty.

Dan,

This is the process Councilman Ruffino had written into the resolution -

NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITRESOLVED, that effective immediately, the Town Board of the Townof Lancaster hereby enacts the following process in regards to the use of outside counsel:

1. The Town Attorney, or designee, is to be contacted initially regarding any matters thatmay be of a legal nature.

2. The Town Attorney, or designee, will then determine if it is in the Town’s best interestto contact outside counsel.

3. Authorization from the Town Attorney, or designee, must be obtained prior to anycouncil member, department head, employee, or representative contacting outsidecounsel on behalf of Town matters.

4. The Town Board shall be notified within 24 hours by means of electronic mail whenoutside counsel is being authorized to work on a particular matter and said notificationshall include the nature of the issue as well as the attorney and/or firm being consulted.

The way #4 is written, it kind of makes you wonder if the full board at the present time is NOT being notified of outside counsel authorizations and the purpose of their use.

It would be nice to know what exactly the process is now. Ooops. that's the purpose of the resolution. There is no policy in place

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee,

I think you are missing the point, it is the job of the Town Board to appoint outside counsel, not the Town Attorney or anyone else. Special Counsel retained by anyone other than the Town Board is not authorized to appear on behalf of the Town or town Officer. By delegating that to the Town Attorney you are eliminating the checks and balances. Also I do not think it is lawful for the Town Board to delegate to anyone their statutory duty.

I don’t think so.

The resolution was to enact a process whereby before the board exercises its rightful authority to retain outside council the matter for review goes before town council to insure his office was not be able to give council or complete the task at hand; thereby saving outside council expenses.

The resolution in no way (IMHO) was to authorize the town attorney to usurp board jurisdiction in hiring outside council. We are not speaking here of activities such as bonding or union negotiation activities.

That said, I find it difficult to understand why no town board meeting attendee questioned the resolution sponsor on the intent of the proposal or the other four board members on their silence. Don't you think the public has a right to hear both sides of the story to gain a clear understanding of what was taking place. Even though the question wasn't asked by the public, don't you think the public was owed an explanation?

[dtwarren]

The way I read the resolution I believe it does usurp the power of the Town Board.

If any member of the public wants to know its intent they are free to ask. Are they owed an explanation, I do not think so.

If the maker of the resolution wanted its intent to be known they had multiple opportunities to do so. At the time of making the motion, in the public comments portion of the meeting or in a press release before or after the meeting where it was to be proposed.

The lack of getting a second ends discussion on the issue in that body, this is well known to the members of that body. I think the real question is why wasn't the above done by the maker of the resolution ahead of the meeting to sway another's vote to get at least a second to begin debate on it by getting public support for it?

[dtwarren]

Dan,

This is the process Councilman Ruffino had written into the resolution -



The way #4 is written, it kind of makes you wonder if the full board at the present time is NOT being notified of outside counsel authorizations and the purpose of their use.

It would be nice to know what exactly the process is now. Ooops. that's the purpose of the resolution. There is no policy in place

The process is outline in New York Town Law 65 and 20 as well as the common law of our State. In the words of the New York Court of Appeals in Cahn v. Huntington, 29 N.Y.2d 451:

It is well-settled law that an attorney may not be compensated for services rendered a municipal board or officer unless he has been retained in accordance with statutory authority. ( Seif v. City of Long Beach, 286 N. Y. 382; Lyddy v. Long Is. City, 104 N. Y. 218; Konnoson v. City of New York, 254 App. Div. 378, affd. 281 N. Y. 716; People ex rel. French v. Town, 1 App. Div. 127; Ann. 2 A. L. R. 1212; 56 Am. Jur. 2d, Municipal Corporations, § 279.) In other words, the power to employ counsel by a municipal board or officer is not deemed to be incidental to such board or officer. Rather, express authority, either by statute or by appropriate resolution of the governing body, must be shown to justify the retention of an attorney by a municipal board or officer. ( Matter of Kay v. Board of Higher Educ. of City of N. Y., 260 App. Div. 9; Reynolds v. Village of Ossining, 102 App. Div. 298; People ex rel. Sherrill v. Guggenheimer, 47 App. Div. 9; see, also, 10 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations [1966 ed.], § 29.16, pp. 280-281.) The salient purpose underlying this rule is, of course, to ensure responsible municipal government. Not only is it designed as a safeguard against the extravagance or corruption of municipal officials, as well as against their collusion with attorneys (cf. Seif v. City of Long Beach 286 N. Y. 382, supra, at pp. 387-388; Dickinson v. City of Poughkeepsie, 75 N. Y. 65, 74-75; McDonald v. Mayor of City of N. Y., 68 N. Y. 23, 28-29), but also, to prevent confusion and contradiction in the direction of the municipality's litigation (cf. Matter of Collins v. Village of Saratoga Springs, 70 Hun 583, affd. 140 N. Y. 637; Adee v. Arnow, 91 Hun 329).

Most Towns appoint Special/Outside counsel in a resolution at its reorganization meeting in which specific matters may be referred to the Special/Outside Counsel. I reviewed the minutes of the Cheektowaga Town Board's first meeting minutes of this year and I did not see such a resolution. Absent a properly passed resolution NO MONEY can be spent on Special/Outside Counsel for any reason except in narrow circumstances that have not been brought up here.

[gorja]

The process is outline in New York Town Law 65 and 20 as well as the common law of our State. In the words of the New York Court of Appeals in Cahn v. Huntington, 29 N.Y.2d 451:



Most Towns appoint Special/Outside counsel in a resolution at its reorganization meeting in which specific matters may be referred to the Special/Outside Counsel. I reviewed the minutes of the Cheektowaga Town Board's first meeting minutes of this year and I did not see such a resolution. Absent a properly passed resolution NO MONEY can be spent on Special/Outside Counsel for any reason except in narrow circumstances that have not been brought up here.

The resolution, in my view wasn't about appointing a new outside counsel. It was regarding the use of outside counsel. Asking the town attorney if the matter the dept head, board member etc had an issue with was something that he (town attorney) could handle or go to outside counsel. That was my interpretation

[gorja]

In Lancaster, I believe Hodgson Russ is the outside counsel. Correct me if I'm erroneous