Suspended resolutions contested and rejected

[Lee Chowaniec]

At Monday evening town board meeting, two resolutions that were added to the Organizational Meeting agenda at the 11th hour were rejected. Resolution sponsor Supervisor Ruffino asked for a suspension of rules that would bring the resolution proposals before the board for vote. To suspend the rules a supermajority board vote (four members) would be necessary. Councilmembers Leary and Dickman voted ‘no’ to suspending the rules. Supervisor Ruffino and councilmembers Mazur and Wozniak voted ‘yes’. The resolutions died.

Why in God’s name would Leary and Dickman vote to deny addition of Schedule of Salaries and Administrative Appointments to the Organizational Meeting when they are part and parcel of every Organizational Meeting; held on the first meeting of the year, every year? Because it was the right thing to do!

At the public comment session held prior to the consideration of the resolutions and vote, residents Chowaniec, Thill, and Lemaster recommended the withdrawal of the suspended resolutions until such time they were published and would allow the public to review the documents and question / comment on the contents. Neither document was published on the town website prior to the meeting.

When Chowaniec asked how he was to question or comment on a resolution without any knowledge of content, Supervisor Ruffino apologized for the delay and declared there was nothing there but the usual stuff. Not having any knowledge of potential salary structure changes, or who had been appointed / reappointed into administrative positions, that was a leap of faith that the residents addressing the board were unwilling to take.

Mr. Thill, a former Town Clerk and Zoning Board of Appeals member for years supported Chowaniec in his claim that this was a first in his 20 years in religiously attending town board meetings, by declaring the first in his decades-long political career and that it was an affront to the Open Meetings Law.

Mr. Lemaster also questioned the board members as to their having family members serving in positions that would create a conflict-of-interest situation and would they recuse themselves. All but councilmember Wozniak answered ‘no’.

It was disturbing to not have the two documents posted on the town website for review and consideration prior to the Organizational Meeting. It is more disturbing to have Supervisor Ruffino sponsor these two suspended resolutions at the 11th hour thereby denying public access to document information and public input. It is analogous to the, “You have to vote for it to know what’s in it,” government debacle.

Equally disturbing is that even when knowing they didn’t have the votes to bring the suspended resolution up for vote, Ruffino, Mazur and Wozniak voted ‘yes’. They had heard good reasons to withdraw the resolutions for further review. Had this gone to vote, it is obvious the resolutions would have passed 3-2. The public be damned.

This is a case of better late than now! Post the Schedule of Salaries and Schedule of Administrative Appointments on the town website ASAP and put it on next meetings agenda. Transparency, Mr. Ruffino, you promised us!

[mark blazejewski]

At Monday evening town board meeting, two resolutions that were added to the Organizational Meeting agenda at the 11th hour were rejected. Resolution sponsor Supervisor Ruffino asked for a suspension of rules that would bring the resolution proposals before the board for vote. To suspend the rules a supermajority board vote (four members) would be necessary. Councilmembers Leary and Dickman voted ‘no’ to suspending the rules. Supervisor Ruffino and councilmembers Mazur and Wozniak voted ‘yes’. The resolutions died.

Better that the resolution die than transparency in the interests of public knowledge and participation.

When Chowaniec asked how he was to question or comment on a resolution without any knowledge of content, Supervisor Ruffino apologized for the delay and declared there was nothing there but the usual stuff.

Perhaps the "usual stuff" if the conduct of the Ruffino administration is considered as the normality standard.

Mr. Thill, a former Town Clerk and Zoning Board of Appeals member for years supported Chowaniec in his claim that this was a first in his 20 years in religiously attending town board meetings, by declaring the first in his decades-long political career and that it was an affront to the Open Meetings Law.

In as much as Mr. Thill accurately pointed out that he worked with Mr. Robert Freeman of the NYS Committee On Open Government to design and implement the current transparency standards, his comments which appeared to equate Ruffino's attempt with the tactics of "Tammany Hall" were a stunning rebuke by the icon Lancaster Town Clerk.

Mr. Lemaster also questioned the board members as to their having family members serving in positions that would create a conflict-of-interest situation and would they recuse themselves. All but councilmember Wozniak answered ‘no’.

Tactfully and graciously stated Lee, but I would just point out that as I heard the meeting and understood Mr. Wozniak's comments, Wozniak at first suggested that he did not have any such relatives, and only admitted the same after Mr. Lemaster pursued the issue with a follow-up question.

The public's interests were well served by Mr. Lemaster's persistence. IMHO, that exchange raises a serious question about Mr. Wozniak's truthfulness and credibility, and reminded me of this political cartoon's comment on Jimmy Carter's ability to discern the truth...

[mark blazejewski]

The audio recording of the Lancaster Town Council session, January 4, 2021...


Reference: https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372/2021-01-04-tbm

[mark blazejewski]

From the audio recording of the Town Council session of February 4, 2021, I transcribed this exchange between resident Kevin Lemaster and Councilman Mike Wozniak...

Mr. Lemaster:

"I have one simple question and one comment: Do any of the Town Board members, or the Supervisor, have any relatives or any type of family relations to any of the people being put on these committees, boards hiring positions, any one of you?"

Supervisor Ruffino:

"I do not, at all."

Councilman Leary:

"Bob Leary, I do not."

Councilman Mazur:

"I do not."

Councilman Dickman:

"Adam Dickman, I do not."

Councilman Wozniak:

"Mike Wozniak, I do not."

Mr. Lemaster:

"Pardon, I did not hear the last..."

Councilman Wozniak:

"Mike Wozniak, and I do not either."

Mr. Lemaster:

"Ah, you're not related to any of the Speyers? (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

"You're related to the Speyers, aren't you?"

Councilman Wozniak:

"Yes."

Mr. Lemaster:

"Okay, then right there, you turned around and made an inaccurate statement."

Reference at 7:45 on this audio link:

https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372/2021-01-04-tbm

[Lee Chowaniec]

In today’s Lancaster Bee report on Monday’s town board meeting titled: ‘Resolutions fail after residents speak out’, I find the following statement made by Supervisor Ruffino perplexing:

“I sent things out to the board members, asked for their consensus on appointments,” Ruffino said. “It’s nothing to hide.”

If Ruffino did in fact send the resolutions out to all board members for consensus, when did he do so and if all councilmembers were in favor of the Schedule of Salaries and Appointment proposals, why did councilmembers Leary and Dickman vote ‘no' to Suspend the Rules that disallowed the resolutions to go to vote and potentially lead to their approval. Was it because they simply believed the public had the right to see and review the documents before board approval or because they had issues with the proposals not having seen the documents until after last Friday’s deadline for the documents to be posted on the agenda for Monday’s meeting?

Issues like stipend removal from one town official’s office, but not others. Like the non-appointment of a Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) member who submitted a request to be reappointed and where that request the great majority of time is approved – especially here where the board member was recommended by Supervisor Ruffino (then councilmember) for appointment to fill a vacated seat several years prior. The same individual who was appointed Chair by fellow ZBA members upon the resignation of the Chair last year. An individual who has the qualifications and experience that make him an asset to the town.

Should these changes, and possibly others be present in the resolutions, denying the public the opportunity to review and speak on them before approval flies in the face of the transparency and openness that was promised by Supervisor Ruffino.

[mark blazejewski]

I felt that The Sun article was for the most part factually correct.

However, I am troubled by the presence of certain unnecessary information, pejorative characterizations, and substantive omissions which in my opinion, tended to perceptibly slant the article, perhaps in the interests of serving the Democrat caucus.

Among other such examples, I am specifically referring to:



(1) I am curious to know why the article directed attention to the fact that the report found it necessary to note that resident Kevin Lemaster was the husband of Conservative Party Chair Debbie Lemaster.

In fact, Mr. Lemaster identified himself by residential address. That information, as I understand the Public Participation protocols, is the only necessary prerequisite to address the Board.

Further, I am concerned about the applied use of the word "threatened" when characterizing Mr. Lemaster's reminder that Lancaster citizens do have recourse to the Town Board of Ethics which issues of conflict of interest are raised. That usage seemed a bit inappropriate to me.

Moreover, the article accurately relates that Lemaster's concerns stemmed from possible conflict of interest issue(s), apparently in connection with Councilman Wozniak's familial relationship with at least one nominee for town office.

(I take occasion to note parenthetically, that even if there was a political consideration in Mr. Lemaster's comments, isn't Councilman Wozniak a member of the Conservative Party, and was he not significantly elected with the benefit of the Conservative Line in the November election?

Furthermore, even though Mr. Wozniak NEVER was the candidate endorsed by the Conservative Party Executive/Vetting Committee, and perhaps through political machinations, won the Conservative primary, does it not speak very highly of Lemaster's dedication to, and demand for, transparency and the highest ethical standards by members of the Conservative Party?)

More concerning, the article held that Mr. Wozniak's family ties were revealed, but failed to mention that Councilman Wozniak seemingly twice denied that relationship. The reader's attention is directed to post #4 of this thread.



(2) Also troubling, I take strong issue with the term "technicality" in regards to Councilmen Leary's and Dickman's success in delaying the vote on the Schedule of Salaries and Appointments because they were introduced as suspended resolutions, which absent a suspension of the rules, could not be voted on in that particular form.

It requires a supermajority to suspend the rules. That is an enshrined, lawful requirement, seemingly designed in part to discourage just the type of behind-the-scenes politics that may be present in this issue. It is not some type of slick, gratuitous, obstructionist tactic.