batavia

What's the recipe for "The Big Game"? Well, start with two undefeated teams in the fifth week of the season. Make sure one of them has a storied history and is hosting the game on homecoming weekend. The other team should be up an upstart, a new program that for the first time is emerging as a powerful, tough-to-beat squad.

That's a Big Game.

And's the situation tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. when Notre Dame hosts the Holley Hawks Notre Dame. The teams clash as division rivals with matching records of 4-0.

“They’ve (Holley) got a great group of kids and we’re probably the underdog here" said Notre Dame's head coach, Rick Mancuso. "We’re fighting an uphill battle, but we’re looking forward to the challenge."

If you put any stock in such things, MaxPreps ranks the Fighting Irish 121st in the state, and Holley at 155th.

The Irish have scored 101 points on the season, Holley, 114. ND's has allowed 35 points, with Holley being a bit stingier, giving up only 23.

The Hawks have a reputation for being a strong, hard-hitting team, and Coach Mancuso acknowledges the Hawks are a tough, well-coached team, but that doesn't make them much different from Attica and Oakfield. Both of those squads have fallen once each this season to the Irish.

"We’ve been against some tough, strong, hard-hitting teams and Holley’s no different than them," Mancuso said,  "other than Holley’s maybe a little bit bigger and they have a little bit better skill level in their back field."

Mancuso said the Hawks probably have the best four backs in the league.

"That gives them an advantage," he said.

"We've got to come out and we've really got to work at it," Mancuso said. "We can't get down they have a big play. We can't get too high and we can't get too low. It's a big challenge."

He said his players are excited about the big game.

It sounds like a recipe for a can't-miss match up.

AUDIO: Interview with Head Coach Rick Mancuso (mp3)

Sheriff's investigators are looking into a brazen daylight garage break-in in which the thief (or thieves) got away with three large items.

Stolen this yesterday morning from 27 Valle Drive, Batavia, was a John Deere tractor with a snow plow attached, a Yamaha Blaster four-wheeler and four snow tires that fit a 2005 Pontiac G6.

The burglars smashed a window to get into the garage between 9 and 10:15 a.m. and left through the overhead garage door, leaving it open.

Anyone with information that might help solve this crime are encouraged to call the Sheriff's Dispatch Center at 345-3000, Ext. 1.

James D. Henry, Jr., 54, of 8296 E. Main Road, Le Roy, is charged with a felony count of criminal possession of a forged instrument and a felony count of attempted grand larceny. Henry, a former Village of Le Roy employee, allegedly entered the village office on Monday possessing a forged doctor's prescription. It stated that Henry "would be out until further notice" in an attempt to gain sick leave compensation, which would have totaled more than $3,000. Henry was arraigned and released under supervision of Genesee Justice.

Robin L. Pirdy, 50, of 588 Route 98, Attica, is charged with DWI and aggravated DWI with a BAC of .08 or greater. Pirdy was reportedly found parked on the side of Molasses Hill Road in Bethany by Deputy Kevin McCarthy. Upon investigation, McCarthy determined that Pirdy had allegedly been driving while intoxicated.

Steven Robert Gorecki, 23, of 106 Tracey Ave., Batavia, is charged with petit larceny. Gorecki is accused of shoplifting from Target.

Willie A. Sabb, Jr., 35, of 19 Porter Ave., Apt. 2, Batavia, is charged with assault in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child and harassment. Police picked up Sabb at his residence on warrants issued by City Court. The charges stem from three separate alleged incidents. No further details were released.

Smoke detectors awoke a Bank Street family this morning, allowing the people in the lower apartment unit to escape safely from a fire that started in an improperly lined chimney, according to a Batavia Fire Department release this morning.

Upon arrival at the 2:20 a.m. alarm, Batavia firefighters entered the upper apartment and awoke the two occupants and escorted them safely from the building.

Firefighters initially responded to the call of a "house filled with smoke."

The fire caused an estimated $30,000 damage to the house and $15,000 to its contents.

No smoke detectors were present in the upper unit, which was located at 140 Bank St..

UPDATE: WBTA spoke with Captain Michael Drew (MP3) of the Batavia Fire Department. Chief Ralph Hyde also told WBTA that the chimney was designed for gas heating and the occupants tried burning wood in the fireplace.

View Larger Map

Sunday from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. the Town of Batavia Volunteer Fire Department will hold an open house at its station at 8382 Lewiston Road.  Lowe's is sponsoring the event through its "Heroes Project." The retailer has paid for 150 smoke detectors, 50 CO detectors and 200 kits for kids to build wooden fire trucks as well as hot dogs, chips and soda for the event. Any county resident who shows up can get a free smoke or CO detector.

It's also a chance for area residents to see the department's equipment and learn more about what the all-volunteer department does, said organizer Joshua Finn.

"There are a lot of guys who put in a lot of our hours and have worked hard for a lot of years and we just want people to come out and see what we do," Finn said.

Safety training is also a big part of the day, which kicks off Fire Prevention Week.

"It's important to get people to start thinking about what they would do if they were in an emergency," Finn said.

Lt. Nate Fix said the department will also be doing training sessions for BOCES and the child care facilities in the department's coverage area. 

Pictured above are Jason Pfleger, John Mullen, both firefighters, Lt. Nate Fix, Chuck Hammer, admin manager for Lowe's in Batavia, Fire Department VP Joshua Finn, and Scott Maloy and Bill Leonard, firefighters.

I happened down Watson Street today and found this house and yard all decked out for Halloween. I hope this bodes well for how many trick-or-treaters we'll get in our neighborhood this year. It's been a long time since Billie and I lived in a neighborhood with a lot kids and trick-or-treaters.

City firefighters doubt this ring was a donation to the union's "Fill the Boot" campaign for MDA. It is likely a woman's wedding band with an inscription inside, which invites all kinds of speculation about whether it was lost accidentally, or not.

If you're missing a ring and want it back, you should contact the Batavia Fire Department.

Bob Bialkowski's active role in pushing forward the complaint against City Manager Jason Molino became a little clearer tonight. His participation is at the center of the current kerfuffle over breached confidence at Batavia City Hall.

Weeks ago, when Bialkowski produced a manila envelope with copies of the complaint letter, he told City Councilwoman Marianne Clattenburg that he received the complaint via email and printed it out for the complainant because that person's printer was broken, Clattenberg said.

Clattenburg said she didn't open the envelope and had no knowledge about the specific contents of the letter before handing it over to Council President Charlie Mallow.

However, the fact that this particular person filed the complaint wasn't a surprise to Clattenburg, because the person first asked Clattenburg how to handle the complaint. Clattenburg said she told the person the proper procedure was to take the complaint to the City Council President (Charlie Mallow). She indicated she was surprised when Bialkowski showed up with an envelope full of copies of the letter.

Mallow confirmed that he received the envelope from Clattenburg.

Both Mallow and Clattenburg say that the existence of the letter was revealed during the Council's next closed session, which had been called previously in order to conduct the contractually mandated performance review of the city manager. 

The council agreed to take the complaint up at its next closed session, since the council was obligated to continue with the performance review and vote on Molino's raise.

That next meeting was Sept. 14, which Bialkowski did not attend, and is central to the breach-of-confidence charge by members of the council. The council discussed the complaint against Molino and agreed that the person who made the complaint should be interviewed by the council and that Molino -- who was out of town -- should be given a chance to respond.

When the council came out of executive session, it voted 7-1 to give Molino a 2.8 percent raise. Councilman Bill Cox cast the lone no vote and after the meeting cited a "personnel" matter, which he wouldn't discuss further, as the reason for his "no" vote.

After that meeting, Mallow, Clattenburg and council members Rose Mary Christian and Kathy Briggs received phone calls from the person who filed the complaint. That person had just enough details of the closed discussion to make it clear to council members, Mallow and Clattenburg said, that somebody on the council spoke freely, either directly to the person who filed the complaint or to another party who then spoke to the complainant immediately after the meeting.

But not all of the details were right. There were also misrepresentations and exaggerations.

"I don't think the public understands," said Clattenburg, "that one of the reasons the council is so upset is that the person was feeding back a lot of misinformation about what was said and we didn't like how the council was being portrayed. This wasn't just a breach of trust. This person (the leaker) was making stuff up, saying stuff that was never said."

Mallow didn't speak directly to the complainant that night (he only received a voice mail), but after he spoke to the other council members, it was clear to him that whoever called the complainant got enough of the facts right that a council person had to be the leaker.

"It was enough of the truth to see that it was somebody who was in the room," Mallow said. "There were enough tidbits of truth, but it wasn't the whole truth. It was just twisted and it was exaggerated."

Neither Mallow nor Clattenburg could say whether the letter as produced by Bialkowski was actually signed by the person making the complaint. The Batavian's news partner WBTA asked Mallow yesterday if the letter was signed, and Mallow said he thought it was. Tonight, The Batavian pointed out that it didn't seem likely that a letter that Bialkowski provided several copies of -- all coming from his printer -- would be signed. Mallow admitted that maybe it wasn't and said City Attorney George Van Nest had his only copy and he would have to check with Van Nest.

Clattenburg also couldn't remember if it was signed and didn't have her copy available.

If the letter wasn't signed, it would call into doubt, at least partially, the veracity of the letter because it would suggest the letter wasn't reviewed by the complainant before it was presented to council.

Mallow was quick to point out that there is no doubt the complainant is a real person and that this person has a complaint he or she considers legitimate. Mallow said that based on an email exchange with the complainant, he's sure the writing styles are the same, but admitted he can't be sure the letter is entirely written by the complainant.

"We don't know that the end-result that we got was the same end-result that Bob got," Mallow said. "I don't know and I can't say for sure."

He then added, almost under his breath, "That would be really devious."

"I can't say for certain that it's the same letter, but I believe the person wanted the council to have the letter," Mallow said.

As we noted in our previous story, The Batavian has offered Bialkowski several opportunities to comment on this matter and he has yet to respond. Mr. Bialkowski has several options available to him to tell his side of the story: He can call us; he can email us a statement which we will post without editing; he can post his own post; he can make a video and post it to YouTube; or he can leave a comment on this or any other post. The Batavian is an open forum and Mr. Bialkowski has all the freedom in the world to tell his story without editorial interference. The same goes for any other council member who has additional information to share on this or any other matter.

Previously:

• Mallow: Council member who leaked document should resign
• Today's Poll: Should the council member(s) who leaked personnel information from a closed session resign?
• 'Council antics' don't pass 'smell test,' asserts Councilman Cox
• Most council members answer straightforward questions about leak of personnel information
• The power of Grand Juries in New York to investigate government actions
• Fellow council members say Bialkowski brought in complaint letter, threatened to release it

We don't know yet who leaked a complaint letter to the Daily News, but two council members say that Councilman Bob Bialkowski is the person who brought the original letter to the council.

Bialkowski also reportedly told a council member that he would divulge the contents of the letter if City Manager Jason Molino received a pay raise.

Council President Charlie Mallow and Councilwoman Kathy Briggs both confirmed that letter first came to the council through Bialkowski.

"That's highly unusual," Mallow said. "Complaints usually come through the council president or the city attorney. We treat all complaints we get equally. But that's not normal."

We've left a message for Bialkowski on his home phone. Yesterday, The Batavian left two messages for Bialkowski asking him to respond to our survey of council members. Bialkowski has not responded to our email, answered the questions or returned phone calls.

Councilman Bill Cox said he had no knowledge of Bialkowski bringing the letter to the council. He thought it came through Councilwoman Marianne Clattenburg, whom he thought had the letter two or three weeks before it was discussed in closed session.

Briggs said that prior to the vote on Molino's raise, another council member called her and said that Bialkowski was threatening to make the contents of the letter public if the council approved Molino's raise, and Briggs said, "What letter?"

She said at that point, she hadn't received the letter and referred to it as "the first letter" that went to only "select council members" from Bialkowski.

Briggs said she believes Bialkwoski brought forward two letters from the same person, and it is the second one that the council reviewed in closed session.

Mallow said he wasn't aware of a "first letter." Cox wasn't aware of there being more than one letter.

Following the closed session where the letter was discussed, four council members -- Briggs, Mallow, Rose Mary Christian and Clattenberg -- received phone calls from the letter's author discussing the substance of, in some detail, though with inaccuracies, the things individual council members said during the closed discussion.

Both Mallow and Briggs said that it's clear that a council member discussed the meeting afterwards with somebody not at the meeting, which made it possible for the letter writer to learn what was discussed behind closed doors.

Bialkowski was not at that Sept. 14 meeting, which was the same night the council voted on Molino's pay raise.

Cox voted against the pay raise, and after the meeting, first characterized his "no" vote as related to a personnel issue he would not discuss publicly. Later he issued a statement that criticized the timing of the raise.

This afternoon, in a phone conversation with The Batavian, Cox agreed that there would be nothing wrong with a council member who was present at a closed session calling a member of the council who missed the meeting and discussing what was said in executive session.

We then asked Cox if he called Bialkowski after the closed door meeting and Cox said he would rather not comment on that question.

While Bialkowski missed the vote on Molino's raise this year, he was present a year ago, June 23, 2008, and voted "yes" on that year's raise for Molino. Bialkowski has been a member of the council since Jan. 1, 2008.

Molino was on vacation the night of the council voted on his raise, which is the same night the council first discussed the complaint letter. Sources say the council delayed further discussion of the complaint until Molino could be present to reply to the charges. Before the council could meet again, the letter was leaked to the Daily News and now at least five council members are unwilling to enter into an executive session without confidence that statements made in a closed session will remain confidential.

UPDATE: Councilman Frank Ferrando just returned our call. He said it was his understanding the letter was brought forward by Bialkowski, but he never heard of Bialkowski threatening to release the letter if Molino received a raise.

Previously:

• Mallow: Council member who leaked document should resign
• Today's Poll: Should the council member(s) who leaked personnel information from a closed session resign?
• 'Council antics' don't pass 'smell test,' asserts Councilman Cox
• Most council members answer straightforward questions about leak of personnel information
• The power of Grand Juries in New York to investigate government actions

Engine 12 and Ladder Truck 15 are on scene at 15 Bank St., Batavia.

I didn't catch the original dispatch, but there have been fire alarms from this building before.

UPDATE 3:50 p.m.: Engine 12 back in station.

City of Batavia Fire Department has been dispatched to Batavia High School because a fire alarm has gone off.

UPDATE 8:52 a.m.: Engine 12 on location. Building evacuated.

UPDATE: 9:09 a.m.: False alarm. Microwave, burnt food.

In California, I was familiar with Grand Juries investigating various government activities, sometimes uncovering wrong doing or mismanagement.

Grand Juries have the power to subpoena and compel testimony, with witnesses facing possible perjury charges if caught in a lie.

In the aftermath of the probable leak of personnel documents by a member of the Batavia City Council to the Daily News, the question came up: Who has the power to investigate something like this?

I sent an e-mail to District Attorney Lawrence Friedman and asked him about the authority of Grand Juries in New York.  Here's his answer:

I have copied and pasted below two sections from the NYS Criminal Procedure Law, with relevant provisions in bold print.  While the alleged conduct might constitute "misconduct in public office by a public servant," the Grand Jury certainly does not investigate every claim of "misconduct... by a public servant."  In fact, in my nearly 28 years in the District Attorney's Office, I can only recall one such Grand Jury investigation.  I think that this is based in large part on the belief that such matters can usually be dealt with more effectively through internal means, rather than involving a Grand Jury.

The code sections come after the jump below.

NOTE: The purpose of this post is not to call for a Grand Jury investigation. That is a major step and could have significant consequences. But I asked the question, got an answer and thought I should make the information available.

§  190.55  Grand  jury;  matters  to  be  heard and examined; duties and authority of district attorney.
   1.  A grand jury may hear and examine evidence concerning the  alleged commission  of any offense prosecutable in the courts of the county, and concerning any misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect in public office by  a public servant, whether criminal or otherwise.
   2.    District attorneys are required or authorized to submit evidence to grand juries under the following circumstances:
   (a)   A district  attorney  must  submit  to  a  grand  jury  evidence concerning a felony allegedly committed by a defendant who, on the basi of  a  felony complaint filed with a local criminal court of the county,  has been held for the action of a grand  jury  of  such  county,  except where  indictment  has  been waived by the defendant pursuant to article one hundred ninety-five.
   (b)   A district  attorney  must  submit  to  a  grand  jury  evidence concerning a misdemeanor allegedly committed by a defendant who has been charged  therewith  by  a local criminal court accusatory instrument, in any case  where  a  superior  court  of  the  county  has,  pursuant  to subdivision  one of section 170.25, ordered that such misdemeanor charge be prosecuted by indictment in a superior court.
   (c)  A district attorney may submit to  a  grand  jury  any  available evidence concerning an offense prosecutable in the courts of the county, or  concerning  misconduct, nonfeasance or neglect in public office by a public servant, whether criminal or otherwise

§ 190.85 Grand jury; grand jury reports.
   1. The grand jury may submit to the court by which it was impaneled, a report:
   (a)    Concerning misconduct, non-feasance or neglect in public office by a public servant as the basis for  a  recommendation  of  removal  or disciplinary action; or
   (b)   Stating that after investigation of a public servant it finds no misconduct, non-feasance or neglect in office by him provided that  such public servant has requested the submission of such report; or
   (c)      Proposing   recommendations  for  legislative,  executive  or administrative action in the public interest based upon stated findings.
   2.  The court to which such report is submitted shall examine  it  and the  minutes  of  the  grand  jury  and, except as otherwise provided in subdivision four, shall make an order accepting and filing  such  report as  a public record only if the court is satisfied that it complies with the provisions of subdivision one and that:
   (a)  The report is based upon facts  revealed  in  the  course  of  an investigation  authorized  by  section  190.55  and  is supported by the preponderance of the credible and legally admissible evidence; and
   (b)   When the report  is  submitted  pursuant  to  paragraph  (a)  of subdivision  one,  that  each  person  named  therein  was  afforded  an opportunity to testify before the grand jury prior to the filing of such report, and when the report is submitted pursuant to  paragraph  (b)  or
 (c)  of  subdivision  one,  it  is  not  critical  of  an  identified or identifiable person.
   3.   The order  accepting  a  report  pursuant  to  paragraph  (a)  of subdivision  one, and the report itself, must be sealed by the court and may not be filed as a public  record,  or  be  subject  to  subpoena  or otherwise  be made public until at least thirty-one days after a copy of the order and the report are  served  upon  each  public  servant  named therein,  or if an appeal is taken pursuant to section 190.90, until the affirmance of the order accepting the report, or until reversal  of  the order  sealing the report, or until dismissal of the appeal of the named public servant by the appellate division, whichever occurs later.   Such public  servant  may  file with the clerk of the court an answer to such report, not later than twenty days after service of the order and report
upon him.  Such an answer shall plainly and concisely  state  the  facts and law constituting the defense of the public servant to the charges in said  report,  and, except for those parts of the answer which the court may determine to be  scandalously  or  prejudicially  and  unnecessarily inserted  therein,  shall  become  an appendix to the report.   Upon the expiration of the time set  forth  in  this  subdivision,  the  district attorney  shall  deliver a true copy of such report, and the appendix if any, for appropriate action, to  each  public  servant  or  body  having removal  or  disciplinary  authority  over  each  public  servant  named therein.
   4.  Upon the submission of a report pursuant to  subdivision  one,  if the  court  finds that the filing of such report as a public record, may prejudice fair consideration of a pending criminal matter, it must order such report sealed and such report may not be  subject  to  subpoena  or public  inspection  during  the pendency of such criminal matter, except upon order of the court.
   5.  Whenever the court to which a  report  is  submitted  pursuant  to paragraph  (a)  of  subdivision  one  is  not  satisfied that the report complies with the provisions of subdivision  two,  it  may  direct  that additional  testimony  be  taken  before the same grand jury, or it must make an order sealing such report, and the report may not be filed as  a public record, or be subject to subpoena or otherwise be made public.

Last night I e-mailed five questions to each of the nine members of the Batavia City Council related to the reported leak of information from a confidential personnel closed session. Five of the council members cooperated by answering the questions directly. Two others did respond, and three have yet to respond (in addition to the questions, I've telephoned each council member who has not answered three times and twice left messages).

Below are the questions and responses.

1. Did you call any member of the public, including but not limited to, the person who wrote the letter in question, after the closed session (or did this person call you and then you revealed the substance of the closed session to the caller)?

Charlie Mallow: "The only contact I have made was this weekend was to send an apology note that the information was leaked." 'No' answers from Frank Ferrando, Tim Buckley, Marianne Clattenburg and Kathy Briggs.

2. Did you call any member of the media following the meeting and discuss, either on the record or off, the content of the closed session?

'No' answers from Mallow, Ferrando, Buckley, Clattenburg, Briggs.

3. Did you provide Joanne Beck or any other member of the media, or any member of the public, a copy of the letter in question?

'No' answers from Mallow, Ferrando, Buckley, Clattenburg, Briggs.

4. In the spirit of Frank Ferrando's statement during tonight's meeting: Are you willing to release Joanne Beck and/or the editors of the Daily News from any promise of confidentiality and let her release your name if you are the council member who leaked the letter or otherwise discussed the matter off-the-record or on background or as an unnamed source?

'Yes' answers from Mallow, Ferrando, Buckley, Clattenburg, Briggs.

Ferrando also included: "I am willing to have Joanne release my name if indeed I am the person who leaked this information.  I release any possible promise."

5. Do you agree or disagree that the council should not meet in closed session again until this matter is resolved to each member's satisfaction?

Mallow, Buckley, Clattenburg and Briggs also said either "I agree" or "No further meetings."

Ferrando wrote:

I believe we should take the recommendation of our attorney George Van Ness and include in our Council rules the confidentiality of Executive Session. Until then, I am reluctant to meet  in an executive session where privacy, particularly involving individuals, is not respected.  In my estimation, someone on our Council was looking to assassinate the character of a person without allowing the individual the Constitutional rights everyone is guaranteed.

City governments are public entities and the rights of ALL of our citizens, under the constitution, must be clearly noted and protected. Whoever did this is, in my opinion, a coward for not stepping forward and owning up to his or her actions.  As  public officials we take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the U.S. and the Charter of the City.  If someone deviates from that sacred trust, they should have the courage to step forward and explain why it was so important to have done so and accept the consequence of such action if deemed by the public to be unacceptable. That's the way our democratic system works and why our system of governance is so special.  For a publicly elected representative to hide behind the confidentiality of a person in the media is also appalling because it casts suspicion on the innocent. That is why I am so intent. as are my colleagues, on finding out who this was because until then it casts doubt and suspicion on all members of Council. In any case Howard, you have my answers to the questions posed.

Councilman Bill Cox sent an written statement, which I posted previously. I sent another e-mail to Mr. Cox and asked if he would respond directly to the questions. He wrote back: "The city attorney advised us not to answer any questions about the executive session." By reply, I pointed out none of the quesitons dealt with what happened in closed session, but what happened after closed session. I have not received a response.

Councilman Sam Barone wrote: "Howard, I will not be responding to these questions.   Sam."

I have yet to hear at all from Council members Bob Bialkowski and Rose Mary Christian.

Last night I e-mailed a series of questions related to the apparent leak of personnel information from a Batavia City Council closed session to local media. I'll have a separate post on the responses shortly, but Councilman Bill Cox sent along the following statement, which we're posting in full:

"The purpose of the executive session in question was to discuss a personnel matter. The specific subject matter and person it involved should be and remain confidential until such time it is deemed advisable to release a statement. That discussion among council members is still ongoing and a second executive session has to be held to complete it. The employee in question has not even had an opportunity to speak to council. It is inappropriate to have any of this information disseminated when the facts have not been evaluated, discussed in total, or any findings made. It is also unfair to any employee to do so without both sides having a chance to discuss the matter. After that process has been completed then we need legal advice on what gets published.

To provide legal guidance to our council, city management, and the public, I e-mailed a letter to NYCOM, the organization all the cities, towns, and villages belong to for this kind of legal guidance to request what municipal and other NYS laws say about the sharing or disclosing the contents of discussions and documentation at executive sessions. I personally told this to Council President Mallow before the meeting Monday night in hopes of preventing the fiasco that occurred from happening. It obviously had no impact. 

It appears some members of council are overreacting and are on an emotional roller coaster. The tragic thing is they are deflecting (intentionally or unintentionally) the real issue and turned it into a second issue. Without a second executive session a determination cannot be accomplished, the employee cannot have an opportunity to reply, and the complainant cannot have his or her complaint heard by council and taken care of.

The real thing going on right now appears to be a witch hunt by some council members who want to require a litmus test of all council members, then a loyalty test, and finally a lynching. Those same council members are the ones who are not doing their job and they are not living up to their oath of office because they are preventing a city matter from being resolved by refusing to go into executive session. They have blown this situation all out of proportion; they have prevented a resolution to a problem; they are allowing a cloud over someone’s reputation to continue and have turned this into a circus.

I would hope this is not a ploy on some council member’s thoughts who are up for re-election to get their names in the paper in hope of getting votes this November. Our voters are smart people. I hope this fall they remember the antics going on at council by certain members, the unwillingness to act as a council on an important matter, and then vote accordingly. This entire fiasco can’t pass the “smell test”; it stinks of politics by those specific members who continue to stir things up.

If this were a business those council people would be told by senior management to get on with business or else. Council has accomplished some very good things in the past 12 months, we need to continue our work.

I take the council position I was elected to seriously will not participate in any of their childish games, litmus tests, or anything else they are trying to sell to the public. We have a lot of important objectives to work on; we have to start our budget process soon, deal with pending neighborhood proposals from NIC, and also get resolution to this problem so we can all concentrate on what we were elected to do which is better government at lower cost."

Bill Cox
Councilman – First Ward

Right now, the cost of garbage collection in City of Batavia is just part of each property owner's tax bill.

It doesn't matter if dwelling is four units with four families, or one unit, the fee you pay is based on assessed value. There's no direct correlation between the amount of refuse produced from your property.

Councilman Sam Barone said last night the current system is unfair.

“Presently, it's based on the value of your home, for example," Barone said, "and there are some agencies that don’t pay at all, non-profit organizations, for example do not pay for trash service.”

Barone brought forward a now familiar proposal -- one that hasn't gotten far before -- to break out the cost of garbage collection as a separate fee on tax bills, and modify the fee-based system so its charged on a per-unit basis, including non-profits.

Councilwoman Rose Mary Christian immediately objected to the idea, saying, "You’re going to see a lot of garbage all over the city."

Councilman Frank Ferrando then backed Barone's proposal.

“We should investigate this because this should really bring down costs to taxpayers,” Ferrando said. “What we're doing is we're looking at the cost, a fairer way of distributing the costs. We should look into it."

At which point, Christian said, “There’s no doubt we should look into it.  We discussed it at the last budget meeting and agreed that we should discuss it sometime this year because it would definitely bring down the cost to taxpayers, so somehow, some way if we can do it, yes.”

Council President Charlie Mallow said he didn't favor putting a fee on garbage collection for non-profits. "Non-profits do a lot of good for the city," Mallow said.

The decision: City staff will investigate what other municipalities in the state are doing and bring a report back to council.