Reply With QuoteI was not able to attend, but I received a call that the special election on this question will be held June 3, 2009 (A Wednesday).
There will be a Special Town Board Meeting on Wednesday, April 8, 2009 at 7:00 PM in the Court Room to accept the downsizing petitions and schedule the particulars of the special election pursuant to New York State Town Law.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
I was not able to attend, but I received a call that the special election on this question will be held June 3, 2009 (A Wednesday).
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
When was this meeting announced? Why didn't they mention it at Mondays's Board Meeting?
It was posted on the Town's website (I do not know when it was placed there) and it was in the W.S. Electronic Newsletter # 09-04 that was sent by e-mail who signed up to receive them at http://www.westseneca.net .
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
WP invited the Bee, the Buffalo News, Mr. Gaughan, Mr. Lawson. More details to come
My understanding is 72 hrs. notice is mandatory. Does anyone know if this is correct? If that is true I do not believe that WP gave 72 hrs notice. He should have made the announcement at the very least at the Monday Board Mtg.
DT Warren thank you for the heads up regarding this meeting. Wally seemed surprised to see some taxpayers there. The Board Members want more notice given to the public regarding the specifics of the June 3rd vote. They will be holding an informational meeting for the public after they hire a new town attorney and deputy town attorney.
Public Officers Law §104. Public notice. 1. Public notice of the time and place of a meeting scheduled at least one week prior thereto shall be given to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at least seventy-two hours before such meeting. 2. Public notice of the time and place of every other meeting shall be given, to the extent practicable, to the news media and shall be conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations at a reasonable time prior thereto. 3. The public notice provided for by this section shall not be construed to require publication as a legal notice. 4. If videoconferencing is used to conduct a meeting, the public notice for the meeting shall inform the public that videoconferencing will be used, identify the locations for the meeting, and state that the public has the right to attend the meeting at any of the locations.
See also: http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/otext/o4250.htm
Further, the judicial interpretation of the Open Meetings Law suggests that the propriety of scheduling a meeting less than a week in advance is dependent upon the actual need to do so. As stated in Previdi v. Hirsch:
"Whether abbreviated notice is 'practicable' or 'reasonable' in a given case depends on the necessity for same. Here, respondents virtually concede a lack of urgency: They deny petitioner's characterization of the session as an 'emergency' and maintain nothing of substance was transacted at the meeting except to discuss the status of litigation and to authorize, pro forma, their insurance carrier's involvement in negotiations. It is manifest then that the executive session could easily have been scheduled for another date with only minimum delay. In that event respondents could even have provided the more extensive notice required by POL §104(1). Only respondent's choice in scheduling prevented this result.
"Moreover, given the short notice provided by respondents, it should have been apparent that the posting of a single notice in the School District offices would hardly serve to apprise the public that an executive session was being called...
"In White v. Battaglia, 79 A.D. 2d 880, 881, 434 N.Y.S.ed 637, lv. to app. den. 53 N.Y.2d 603, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 421 N.E.2d 854, the Court condemned an almost identical method of notice as one at bar:
"Fay Powell, then president of the board, began contacting board members at 4:00 p.m. on June 27 to ask them to attend a meeting at 7:30 that evening at the central office, which was not the usual meeting date or place. The only notice given to the public was one typewritten announcement posted on the central office bulletin board...Special Term could find on this record that appellants violated the...Public Officers Law...in that notice was not given 'to the extent practicable, to the news media' nor was it 'conspicuously posted in one or more designated public locations' at a reasonable time 'prior thereto' (emphasis added)" [524 NYS 2d 643, 645 (1988)].
Based upon the foregoing, absent an emergency or urgency, the Court in Previdi suggested that it would be unreasonable to conduct meetings on short notice, unless there is some necessity to do so.
“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” ― Thomas Jefferson
Gaughan is telling eveyone that his petition has been "preapproved" by a judge. It is critical that the name of this judge be uncovered and disclosed so that any legal challenge to the petition is not assigned to that judge. Also, I was of the impression that sitting judges were not supposed to issuing advisory opinions or practicing law on the side. We have already had one recent incident of a judge intruding himself into a legal dispute and it led to a disaster for all involved. Let's hope another judicial career isn't ruined in support of this bizarre little man's "mission".
Sorry but you can't campare someone trying to improve things for the tax payer to a DWI, grow up or get laid!Originally Posted by grump
"I know you guys enjoy reading my stuff because it all makes sense. "
Dumbest post ever! Thanks for the laugh PO!
After reading this morning's paper, I am more disgusted than ever. Graber and Bove are trying to limit the time and places for people to vote to try and save their own necks. It convinces me more and more that these 2 have to go. They are obstructing govt and not allowing the public the right to voice their opinions. I wasn't at the meeting last night but the News says it all. Time for the residents to stand up and be counted. Bye, bye G & B.
http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregio...ry/634720.html
It is hard to understand the "this is about citizens reclaiming government" part of the Gaughan statement. If there are 44000 residents of WS, and you divide that number by five you get one representitive per 8800 residents. If you divide that number by three, you get one representitive for 14,667 residents. Instead of reclaiming representitive government, you are voting it away.Kevin Gaughan, the citizen activist who has been traveling throughout Western New York in an effort to reduce the size of local governments, was pleased with the board’s decision to set the date for the referendum.
“You just saw something that has never happened before in Western New York,” he said. “We’re going to have a magnificent debate. This is about citizens reclaiming government.”
If you think that WP is doing good things for the WS tax payers, you are the one should get laid. WP did not pay an insurance premium and did not tell the town board about it, the three board members responded by writing a letter to the town employees, and requesting that town communications be sent to all board members because the supervisor is irresponsable and noncommunicative. WP responded by supporting a downsizing petition.
Ironically, they were right. WP is not timely, does not communicate well, and does not grasp his job. Other than that he might be "trying" hard.
http://www.upstate-citizens.org/Resolution.pdf
"Graber argued that the changes would make it easier for voters"
How? Some people work the night shift, some work the day shift, and some work the mid shift. If you are going to have a vote, do it right and have the 12 hours for everyone to be able to vote for or against.
It's pretty clear Graber and Bove are protecting their positions. Honestly, if you did good enough job in office, why not run again Meegan or Clarke? They must be worried they won't be elected again.
I think they are doing the only thing anyone would do: defend when attacked, and this is an attack. I think not only Meeghan and Clarke, but WP himself would be a target in future elections. I think WP is very vulnerable because he is so unlikeable. Anyone with some people skills, is able to speak to groups, ties to the vol fire departments, and willing to go door to door should be able to beat him. The incumbent always has an advantage though, and that is the only thing going for him, certainly not his job performance.
Dougles, I've already grown up as much as I'm going to thankfully. As for getting laid, I continue to hold out great hope for this weekend. Sadly, from the standpoint of judicial conduct I find each of these episodes reprehensible in its own way (if Gaughan is, in fact, telling the truth about actually having had a judge vet his petition in advance). No judge should be able to prejudge a case or sit in judgment over that which he has already secretly reviewed. On top of that, most judges (town/village justices excepted) are precluded from practicing law on the side. I don't know everything about what constitutes the "practice of law" but I have to think that reviewing documents and rendering a legal opinion as to their validity fits in the definition somewhere!! As I underestand it, Gaughan is an attorney and as such is an officer of the court and one would think that he understands the rules in this regard.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions