At a previous town board meeting, resident Don Symer asked council member Donna Stempniak when the language changed that now reads that the Town ‘acknowledges’ issuance of building permits from ‘approve’ as done in the past. Stempniak declared it was always that way. Symer in turn declared it was not. Stempniak then said to Symer, “Prove it!”

Symer did research and addressed the town board Monday evening on the matter. He hand handouts distributed to the members of the town board that contained copies of past building permit resolutions that showed ‘approved’ was the language used in 1993 and two examples of 2001 resolutions sponsored by Stempniak that read ‘approved’.

Stempniak explained that the language in the past may have said approved, but the intent was only to acknowledge building permit issuance based on the due diligence of the Building Department and they’re certification. “They are the experts.”

Stempniak and other board members spoke on the chaos that would ensue from having residents as well as developers held up by the formality of town approval. “It’s a short building season and someone having a roof leak could not wait a month to contract and have a roof installed.

Symer made it clear he understood the ramifications of having a waiting period and was not indicating he wanted a formal process where the board had the final say, but asking when the language changed and where that put the board in relation to possible liability should such occasion arise.

Policy/Procedures/Autonomy

The writer asked council member Stempniak why she had voted ‘no’ on resolution #9, the hiring of seasonal workers by the highway department, while at the same time she had voted ‘yes’ to the hiring of Parks & Recreation seasonal hires. “I have some personal issues with it,” replied Stempniak.

Chowaniec: The reason I ask is to get clarification on hiring process and language use. Mr. Symer asked earlier on the use of the word ‘acknowledge’ for building permits. We also hear/read the words appoint and approve on resolutions and become confused as to their use.
It is my understanding that according to municipal law an elected official has the sole authority to hire or fire workers and his determination is not based on town board approval.

Supervisor Dino Fudoli: The highway department superintendent by state law has the right to hire someone as long as he or she is not adding a position, changing the salary structure and honors all labor agreements. He or she can fill (full time) vacancies on they’re own. Chowaniec: Why does he have to come before this board for seasonal appointment approval (resolution #9)? What’s different?

Fudoli: Regarding resolution #9 and the hiring of seasonal employees, there are salary changes and therefore highway superintendent Amatura has to come to the board for recommended appointee approvals. I believe the wages increased by 25 cents an hour from last year. He is not filling vacancies per se as seasonal positions; are not considered full time union positions. As the position of Parks & Recreation is not an elected position, Mr. McCracken has to come before the board for appointment approvals.

Chowaniec: Why then was there all this hullabaloo when the Town Clerk, an elected official, wanted to make those appointment changes last year and they came before the town board for resolution?

Councilman John Abraham: I think it was past practice.

Fudoli: I think it was a courtesy that was extended to this board. I guess there were some discrepancies.

Chowaniec: So in the future we are not going to see the same past practice?

Fudoli: I don’t know. I can’t speak for the other department heads or elected officials what they are going to do in the future, whether they will offer the board the same courtesies.

Chowaniec; With the openness and transparency that is taking place, I think the questions asked tonight and the answers provided are important in that some of us that have been attending meetings for years were uncertain on the use and interchangeability of the resolution language used and the process of employee hiring. Some of this came about when the Town Attorney made a comment at a MRC meeting that ‘the town had been doing it wrong for years’ regarding SEQR approval.

SEQR procedural change

Before closing the meeting, Lancaster Town Attorney John Dudziak requested for and was granted permission to address the statement made by Chowaniec regarding the change in format on SEQR (environment review).

Dudziak: I don’t remember those exact words ‘the town has been doing it wrong for years (he did) but if I did it’s a matter of semantics.

Council member Stempniak interjected that seminar was held at the last planning board meeting. They were told they were doing things a little incorrectly. It was the responsibility of the town board to vote on the SEQR findings determined in joint Municipal Review Committee (MRC) session where SEQR is conducted between town and planning members (12). All 12 members have a say in the hearing and vote their recommendation of approval or denial to the town board based on their environmental review findings.

Stempniak declared they were informed that the town board alone could hold SEQR. They could review the planning board findings, take into consider the planning board recommendation and make their own determination. Stempniak declared that the town would still like to have planning board participation because ‘they have a more intimate knowledge of the process.’

Where in the past the MRC’s decision determined outcome, now the MRC made up of town and planning board members will meet to hold SEQR, vote to make a recommendation to the town board, the MRC findings would then be reviewed by the town board and the outcome would be the result of the town board’s findings and determination.

The new age of openness and transparency in Lancaster; ask and ye shall receive.