Residents need to know

[Lee Chowaniec]

I would like to thank Supervisor Ruffino for addressing board members and residents prior to last night's town board meeting to use the microphones provided when speaking – and adjusting them for proper use and voice transmission.

Today's town’s website recording is distinguishable and provides those unable to attend the meeting the ability to not only listen in on town business but to also have the ability to have input through written correspondence.

I also commend the board for the improvement in resolution language detail and clarity, and the additional comments made by board members to further clarify resolution language.

I was particularly impressed with Stutzman Road resident James Ostroff’s closing comments on his disappointment with the tabling of resolution #11 - to add signage for no left turns onto Pleasant View Drive from Stutzman Road from 3-6 pm. Mr. Ostroff’s comments can be heard on the town website recording at the 1;00;00 mark to 1:06:00. Spot on, Mr. Ostroff!

The town creates the problems, the residents complain, the town blames the residents

[Lee Chowaniec]

Mr. Ostroff's town board comments - 1:00:00 - 1:06:00

https://soundcloud.com/user-329292372

[mark blazejewski]

I would like to thank Supervisor Ruffino for addressing board members and residents prior to last night's town board meeting to use the microphones provided when speaking – and adjusting them for proper use and voice transmission.

Today's town’s website recording is distinguishable and provides those unable to attend the meeting the ability to not only listen in on town business but to also have the ability to have input through written correspondence.

I also commend the board for the improvement in resolution language detail and clarity, and the additional comments made by board members to further clarify resolution language.

My thanks to you Lee for bring these issues to prominence. IMHO, it was your public comments which paved the way for such a timely resolution.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Open government’ ailing from more than pandemic
Rod Watson – Buffalo News

When Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation last week extending the ability of governments to hold meetings online or by phone during the pandemic, she and other officials gushed about “transparency” and “accessibility.”

But if Hochul really wants to show that she’s a new breed of leader, that insufficient move will be just a first step because there’s so much more she can do if New Yorkers are really to have the open and accessible government they deserve.

Even the extension itself, which might seem sensible as the Delta variant rages, is but a half step. In a joint statement, a coalition of good-government groups rightly point out that the choice between in-person and remote meetings was a false one. They note that, while safer during a pandemic, remote meetings also make it “considerably more difficult for reporters and the public to voice their opinions, press officials on issues, or get statements on the record.”

They are calling for a hybrid model in which, for example, a board president and chief executive might convene in-person with members of the public who want to show up. Meanwhile, other board members as well as citizens who might benefit from remote meetings – such as those with disabilities or transportation challenges – could still participate virtually.

“So there’s an option to do both,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, citing the value in having journalists and citizens be able to question officials before and after a meeting. “That matters. We’d like to see that preserved,” he said, adding that there are nine bills in the Assembly trying to get at that.

That’s one reason the groups are calling on the Assembly and Senate government operations committees to hold hearings on updating the Open Meetings Law before this latest temporary exemption expires Jan. 15.

But while dealing with the pandemic may be the immediate impetus, New York’s anemic law has serious shortcomings well beyond that, shortcomings Hochul needs to tackle if she really intends to keep her vow to change governmental culture.

For instance, something as fundamental as posting meeting documents online ahead of time so that the public understands what’s being discussed and voted on has to be done only “as best as practicable,” which basically leaves it up to the governmental agency to make that determination, said Paul Wolf, president of the locally based New York Coalition for Open Government.

Nor does New York’s law mandate that the public be allowed to weigh in before a vote is taken, Wolf noted, adding that some governmental bodies let the public speak at committee meetings only, not at their action meetings.

But as serious as those shortcomings are, the major concern is that the law is a paper tiger. “One of the biggest problems is there’s no enforcement authority,” Wolf said.

Unlike states like Florida, Connecticut or Massachusetts that allow officials to go after violators and impose meaningful fines, New York’s Committee on Open Government can merely issue advisory opinions. Instead, New York puts the burden on individual citizens to sue, and even if they win, the most they can collect is attorney’s fees, and “that happens pretty rarely,” Wolf said.

Kaehny agrees that New York’s Committee on Open Government “is built to fail, the way it’s currently constituted.”

All of that, not just remote meetings, should be on the table.

Kenneth Zebrowski, chairman of the Assembly Governmental Operations Committee, said he and a colleague were already planning to hold hearings, probably in October.

“You’ve got a lot of divergent views on the issue” of in-person versus remote meetings, he noted, calling the extension passed last week “an option, not a mandate.”

But he said the hearings will deal not just with that, but with the full range of issues relating to the Open Meetings Law not just during the pandemic, but beyond.

That’s encouraging because the problems with New York’s law predate Covid-19 and, without action, will be here long after it wanes. But it will take more than just legislative hearings, it will take committed leadership by the new governor.

The pandemic has put a spotlight on New York’s law, laying bare its many weaknesses. Hochul should not waste this crisis in addressing them – all of them.

Spot on!

[mark blazejewski]

Open government’ ailing from more than pandemic
Rod Watson – Buffalo News

When Gov. Kathy Hochul signed legislation last week extending the ability of governments to hold meetings online or by phone during the pandemic, she and other officials gushed about “transparency” and “accessibility.”

But if Hochul really wants to show that she’s a new breed of leader, that insufficient move will be just a first step because there’s so much more she can do if New Yorkers are really to have the open and accessible government they deserve.

Even the extension itself, which might seem sensible as the Delta variant rages, is but a half step. In a joint statement, a coalition of good-government groups rightly point out that the choice between in-person and remote meetings was a false one. They note that, while safer during a pandemic, remote meetings also make it “considerably more difficult for reporters and the public to voice their opinions, press officials on issues, or get statements on the record.”

They are calling for a hybrid model in which, for example, a board president and chief executive might convene in-person with members of the public who want to show up. Meanwhile, other board members as well as citizens who might benefit from remote meetings – such as those with disabilities or transportation challenges – could still participate virtually.

“So there’s an option to do both,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, citing the value in having journalists and citizens be able to question officials before and after a meeting. “That matters. We’d like to see that preserved,” he said, adding that there are nine bills in the Assembly trying to get at that.

That’s one reason the groups are calling on the Assembly and Senate government operations committees to hold hearings on updating the Open Meetings Law before this latest temporary exemption expires Jan. 15.

But while dealing with the pandemic may be the immediate impetus, New York’s anemic law has serious shortcomings well beyond that, shortcomings Hochul needs to tackle if she really intends to keep her vow to change governmental culture.

For instance, something as fundamental as posting meeting documents online ahead of time so that the public understands what’s being discussed and voted on has to be done only “as best as practicable,” which basically leaves it up to the governmental agency to make that determination, said Paul Wolf, president of the locally based New York Coalition for Open Government.

Nor does New York’s law mandate that the public be allowed to weigh in before a vote is taken, Wolf noted, adding that some governmental bodies let the public speak at committee meetings only, not at their action meetings.

But as serious as those shortcomings are, the major concern is that the law is a paper tiger. “One of the biggest problems is there’s no enforcement authority,” Wolf said.

Unlike states like Florida, Connecticut or Massachusetts that allow officials to go after violators and impose meaningful fines, New York’s Committee on Open Government can merely issue advisory opinions. Instead, New York puts the burden on individual citizens to sue, and even if they win, the most they can collect is attorney’s fees, and “that happens pretty rarely,” Wolf said.

Kaehny agrees that New York’s Committee on Open Government “is built to fail, the way it’s currently constituted.”

All of that, not just remote meetings, should be on the table.

Kenneth Zebrowski, chairman of the Assembly Governmental Operations Committee, said he and a colleague were already planning to hold hearings, probably in October.

“You’ve got a lot of divergent views on the issue” of in-person versus remote meetings, he noted, calling the extension passed last week “an option, not a mandate.”

But he said the hearings will deal not just with that, but with the full range of issues relating to the Open Meetings Law not just during the pandemic, but beyond.

That’s encouraging because the problems with New York’s law predate Covid-19 and, without action, will be here long after it wanes. But it will take more than just legislative hearings, it will take committed leadership by the new governor.

The pandemic has put a spotlight on New York’s law, laying bare its many weaknesses. Hochul should not waste this crisis in addressing them – all of them.

Spot on!

Mr. Watson's article raises a concern that I hold, and it is not a criticism of Mr. Watson's article; it is a criticism of his employer.

In that regard, how about a dedicated reporter assigned to cover Lancaster affairs???

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Lee, I usually don't take the view of Mr. Waston, but I agree he had nailed it. It seems to be somewhat of a "johnny-come-lately" opinion from him.
I wonder what made him speak up now? I mean surely he has been aware of the local governments blocking the voters from the pertinent information they required to decide on a worthy candidate to vote for.
Regardless, kudos to him. I hope that the TOL Supervisor takes notice and as was pointed out to him in the last few meetings and does something about a more feasible communication delivery system using as many modern updated possibilities there are available.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Frank:

As a ‘blank’ who has his BS meter frequently activated from politicos and media reports from the left and right, every once in a while a report comes out that rings true and I don’t care from what source it came.

I have already commended Supervisor Ruffino for requesting board members and residents use the microphones provided. A great improvement in clarity and transparency was provided.

Would I prefer that the recording was in video format? Indeed. Would I favor an interactive electronic version allowing the entire town access, probably not. If one is really interested in having meeting input and unable to attend, they could prepare comments and have them presented by another. Written comments are also appropriate.

Overall, I would say that the town board conducts a fair meeting with public comments allowed upfront on the pre-filed resolutions and on any subject matter at the closing of the meeting. If the board responds to a comment or question and gives an answer one does not like / agree with, it is not the process that has failed and needs to be changed.

An improvement I would like to see made is that the board pre-meeting work sessions would be recorded and published on the town website as well as the regular meeting.

Lancaster residents have a right to know what is taking place in town and how their money is being spent. There is an abundance of information on the town website, access to contact board members provided, and department staffs that are amiable and open to help provide information.

Less than 10 years ago to get the same information as today, one would have to go to the Clerk’s Office / Library /Police station to get a packet to review information on the upcoming town board meeting agenda / pre-file resolutions / communications.

Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals agendas, recordings and minutes are also posted on the town’s website.

The process is in place for residents to get the information needed and the vehicle in place for residents to have input. Where resident dissatisfaction with administration information input and where board resolution decisions are deemed not in the best interest of the community, a board membership change should be contemplated.

[Frank Lee Blunt]

Lee, your educated insights on all subjects involving Lancaster political history is one I look to for clarity. I do agree with you that information is more easily obtained today as opposed to 10 years ago. My wish would be to access a live video of the real-time meeting. It does not have to be interactive, merely informational. Citizens with questions that directly affect them could attend the meeting in person. All the info can be referenced after the fact but live viewing is so much more revealing. Transparency from start to finish and fully broadcast meetings can only help the public stay interested and involved.
We all are working toward the same outcome and I believe with constant pressure every politician locally can be held accountable.
Thank you again Lee for the irreplaceable facts and advice you bring to the table.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Lee, your educated insights on all subjects involving Lancaster political history is one I look to for clarity. I do agree with you that information is more easily obtained today as opposed to 10 years ago. My wish would be to access a live video of the real-time meeting. It does not have to be interactive, merely informational. Citizens with questions that directly affect them could attend the meeting in person. All the info can be referenced after the fact but live viewing is so much more revealing. Transparency from start to finish and fully broadcast meetings can only help the public stay interested and involved.
We all are working toward the same outcome and I believe with constant pressure every politician locally can be held accountable.
Thank you again Lee for the irreplaceable facts and advice you bring to the table.

Agree on the live video, Frank. In today's world of digital technology that is not asking a lot.

[mark blazejewski]

My wish would be to access a live video of the real-time meeting. It does not have to be interactive, merely informational.

In that reaction attendant to fully assessed and digested information may have more value over response based on immediate impulse, this proposal may actually be more preferable to me.

[Lee Chowaniec]

Need to know

Why isn’t an opening for an accountant position posted on the Lancaster website?

Through the 22 years I have been involved in Lancaster politics, it has been the custom to post all job openings in Town Hall and in the last few years on the town website as well. Not this time.

The town is looking to hire an Accountant and is posting the job on Indeed, an outside employment agency: https://www.indeed.com/jobs?q=accoun...e2759597be1965

Accountant- job post
Lancaster, NY 14086
$49,006 - $57,654 a year - Full-time
Employer actively reviewed job 17 days ago
Apply Now
Urgently hiring
Job details
Salary
$49,006 - $57,654 a year
Benefits & Perks
Health insurance, Paid time off, Dental insurance, Vision insurance, Flexible spending account
Job Type
Full-time

I would have to ask:

Why isn’t it posted on the town website affording Lancaster residents firsthand knowledge and opportunity to apply for the position?

Who contracted this agreement with Indeed? Is it in the Supervisor’s purview to hire this position, as his sole privilege in hiring his private secretary and Director of Budget & Finance?

Who interviews the applicants, vets them, and determines most qualified for filling the position?

It appeared that even the town board members were unaware of the hiring practice when earlier an individual who accepted the job, was approved by town board resolution, and then resigned before putting in one day of work - receiving a better employer wage offer.

It appears this position was urged by town auditors when performing their task. Did Drescher-Malecki ever certify or render an audit final opinion?

Openness, transparency? I think not!

[gorja]

Actually, Lee, nowadays indeed.com is where people do go to look for a job.
Most companies post their job openings on indeed and the residency requirement is included in the ad.

[mark blazejewski]

It appears this position was urged by town auditors when performing their task. Did Drescher-Malecki ever certify or render an audit final opinion?

Given the chaos which has been present in the Budget Office, perhaps the town should post an opening for a "crisis seminar" facilitator?

You know, a counselor trained to help an organization deal with an institutional nervous breakdown?

[Lee Chowaniec]

Actually, Lee, nowadays indeed.com is where people do go to look for a job.
Most companies post their job openings on indeed and the residency requirement is included in the ad.

Actually, I went to an employment agency (Snelling & Snelling) in the 60’s, hired through them and likewise paid a two-week salary, as did my employer, to the employment agency.

Has the Town of Lancaster government become a company now and by-passed the custom of posting job positions?

Who interviewed, vetted, and made the determination of who was best qualified for the position? The councilmembers didn’t. Does this fall under the purview / scope of the Supervisor?

Are we setting a precedent? Have we even been told the need for this position?

[gorja]

Actually, I went to an employment agency (Snelling & Snelling) in the 60’s, hired through them and likewise paid a two-week salary, as did my employer, to the employment agency.

Has the Town of Lancaster government become a company now and by-passed the custom of posting job positions?

Who interviewed, vetted, and made the determination of who was best qualified for the position? The councilmembers didn’t. Does this fall under the purview / scope of the Supervisor?

Are we setting a precedent? Have we even been told the need for this position?

No cost to the job seeker.

What is Indeed?

Indeed is a free service to job seekers, where you can upload a resume, create job alert emails, search for jobs, save them and apply to them directly. We include all the job listings from major job boards, newspapers, associations, and company career pages, and employers can even post jobs directly to Indeed that may not be available anywhere else.