Is consolidation a dead issue?
City Council President Charlie Mallow thinks so.
He thinks so after, for a second time, the council tabled "indefiniately" a resolution to hold a public hearing on a proposed joint charter review commission.
“It’s a political maneuver to kill something permanently without actually going on the record and voting against it," Mallow said after the meeting. "We’ve had things in the past, you know, we’ve had all this controversy about that slumlord act that was tabled indefinitely. It’s killed. It means you voted against it but you don’t want the public to recognize it. That’s what happened here tonight.”
The resolution, while moving forward the idea of consolidation of the city and town of Batavia, would hardly have committed either community to joining forces in a single municipal body. It would have simply allowed a joint committee to come up with a plan of what a consolidated Batavia might look like as a legal entity.
It was clear from the motion of of Councilwoman Rose Mary Christian that at least some of the council members who voted to table the motion did so as a maneuver to block further consolidation talk.
"I have a problem with it simply because once it takes effect, there’s no turning back," Christian said. "The fact is that consolidation is good, but, I don’t see why we can’t have shared services. We can share facilities. We can share equipment. Why do we need consolidation?"
Councilwoman Kathy Briggs said after the meeting, however, that most of the council was focused on language in the resolution that would have had the city council president sitting on the committee, and many council members think that job should go to the new council president, whomever that might be, once Mallow is out of office and a new council is seated among a group of people who would appoint committee members. They want the new council president, whomever that might be, be part of that process.
City Manager Jason Molino told the council that Town of Batavia officials are interested in revising the resolution anyway to clarify some of the language and add a little more substance.
"They want to add more specifics on the parameters of what committee with do," Molino said.
Councilman Frank Ferrando didn't sound hopeful that consolidation would move forward.
“I hope that there’s support, because that’s an important move that this community has to make," Ferrando said. "Right now, it’s hard to read."
It was Ferrando who requested the resolution be placed back on the council agenda after it was tabled two business meetings ago.
"When you table something, you don’t table it into perpetuity. It has to come back again," Ferrando said. "I haven’t heard a good reason yet as to why we’re not moving forward."
Ferrando indicated that he'll take the next opportunity -- the next conference meeting -- to get the issue before the council again.
Councilman Bob Bialkowski raised the first procedural question after Ferrando finished speaking. He seemed to think that tabling it previously killed it. City Attorney George Van Nest said there was no procedural reason -- nothing in Roberts Rules of Order or prior council practice -- to prevent the council from taking action on the resolution.
Councilman Bill Cox also raised procedural objections.
Mallow was having none of it and accused his fellow council members of being cowards for not taking a yes or no vote on the resolution. He said killing consolidation without a vote was a waste of state taxpayers money (a state grant paid for the consolidation study) and that council members owed it to citizens to give them at least a chance to discuss the idea.
"If you don’t want this, vote against it," Mallow said. "Vote against it. We owe that at least to the members of the public, but you don’t even want to give the members of the public and the people in this city the right to even talk about this issue? That’s stealing the state’s money. That’s stealing taxpayers money. Let them talk about it. Let them come up with a proposal.
"Fear of change," Mallow added. "We all have little seats here on council. Maybe they don’t like us. Maybe they don’t like the idea that we have a city council. Maybe they’ll change it. Maybe they’ll give us a mayor. Who knows what they’ll do? That's the fear. That’s the fear of the unknown."
Christian's motion to table, passed 6-3, with only Mallow, Ferrando and Councilwoman Marianne Clattenburg voting to keep the issue alive.
Charlie should have known a
Charlie should have known a majority members wanted to wait until after the November election and a new council president takes office.
He is a lame duck and there could be as many as 5 new members of council in January, or there may only be one, the who will replace Charlie. To wait is the right thing to do.
He wanted council to vote on a JOINT City/Town resolution that was written by the consolidation study group. But this is going to be altered by the Town Board, so you have to wait and see what changes are going to be made. But Charlie wanted a vote to have a Public hearing on a unknown resolution. That is not a good idea.
I don't know ... You have
I don't know ...
You have two council members -- Bialkowski and Cox, and Cox especially, who seem skeptical about consolidation, raising procedural issues.
You have the council member who outright says she opposes consolidation making the motion to table.
While Molino says the Town wants to make some revisions, he didn't make a strong statement against passing the resolution last night. There's no indication the two resolutions need to gibe in exact same language. There doesn't appear to be any negative consequences from passing the resolution as written last night, unless the Batavia council wants the same changes, which nobody on council last night seemed to be asking for.
Finally, the lame duckness of Mallow seems to me to be a total smoke screen. First, the committee isn't likely to meet before Mallow leaves office; second, even if it met once -- so what? The new council president goes to the second meeting rather than Mallow. What's the big deal?
Something does smell fishy about "indefinitely" tabling the resolution.
The resolution calls for the
The resolution calls for the Council President to make a appointment to the committee, not sit on it.
Some members do not want a lame duck to make that appointment, but the new Council president.
Bob and Bill objected to the way this came back up. Many members thought it would not be brought back up until after the Novenmber election. In the past Mr. Ferrando has allowed tabeled motions to sit for years. What was the rush?
Charlie should have checked to see if this had enough support before the election. It was clear it did not.
Consolidation may or may not happen, but I bet there is a vote to join a joint Charter Commission after the new council takes office in January.
Thanks for the clarification,
Thanks for the clarification, John. I'll correct the post.
My “duckness” is a complete
My “duckness” is a complete smokescreen. The vote was for a public hearing only. There would have had to be at least one more vote, as well as some effort to jive with the town in the future. There is no possible way there would be enough time this year.
Besides, what if I did get a say with the people from the town? What do you think I would influence the group making the selections to do? If anything, I am pretty transparent. I would obviously want someone who strongly supports consolidation as I do. What is there to fear if you truly do support consolidation?
These people like things the way they are. They want to keep their little council seats. They are afraid of change because, the people might not want them around anymore.
Bottom line is simple. If you don’t want consolidation, vote no. See how easy things are? The problem is there is an election coming real soon and these politicians don’t want to make anyone mad at them. Delay, stall and if that don’t work, lie.
Howard, Until the Batavia
Howard,
Until the Batavia Town Board takes action, this is really not an issue.
If and when they vote to start a joint charter commission, I'll bet you a cup of coffee that the City Council votes to go along.
John, but none of that really
John, but none of that really addresses the issue of why not vote on the resolution last nigh? Why stall? So the town hasn't taken action yet? And after these stall tactics, why should the town board take action now?
Charlie makes a good point -- regardless of who or what the process is for selecting the committee, by the time it gets to that point, Charlie won't be on council.
So why the stall? It doesn't make much sense. It is an issue, because the resolution should have come up on the previous business meeting, according to the city attorney, and didn't as an oversight, so it came up, as procedurally correct, according to Van Nest, last night, and the council refused to take action for reasons that don't make a lot of sense, unless you're hoping there will be enough votes on the new council to block consolidation.
And btw: I remain a consolidation skeptic. I'm not convinced that it will be a totally good thing for the city. But I'm also skeptical about what's going on with tabling this resolution "indefinitely."
Howard, I support
Howard,
I support consolidation if done right. But, if it does not address fire and police service, then why bother. I agree with Councilman Bill Cox on that.
The idea the election in the city is playing a part in this is just silly. All three Republicans support consolidation, so they are not hiding.
True, all three Democrats have not come forward yet, after months, and let us know where they stand, and that could be what Charlie means. But I think one of them does support the idea.
When this was first tabled, it was clear the majority wanted to wait until after the November election. Charlie and Frank decided to bring it up before that, and lost.
Odd that Frank is not saying this was to kill consolidation. I think he knows it will be brought back up later and passed.
And I think we should wait and see if the Town moves forward.
John, but why wait until
John, but why wait until after the election? This is the council that got the ball rolling on consolidation. Why wait now?
Why the stall?? Why not
Why the stall?? Why not >>>>>> that's the way the City of Batavia operates. They think about drafting a resolution to vote on a resolution to discuss a resolution to the previous resolution that was tabled at the last resolution.
City council members should be ashamed that they don't have a collective backbone. They don't make decisions, they only go to council meetings to attend another council meeting.
Your little seats on the council don't even add up to one.
You can't even make a decision on garbage collection.... 20 years later.
The citizens of Batavia deserve sooo much more.
The little ole Town of Batavia has its act together.
When are you gonna start??
My 2 Cents-Along with this
My 2 Cents-Along with this merger will come several other obstacles that will need to be addressed by the council-So lets not hand this project off to a council that may not favor It in the first place."MAKE CENTS"?
I wrote an anonymous letter
I wrote an anonymous letter to complain about council and reqested that they call an executive session to dicuss the anonymous letter of complaint. Just found out that one of them leaked the letter to The Batavian:
Dear Batavia City Council:
Everyone is sick of your Shananagahagans
Please act like adults or resign.
Anonymous
Bottom line , take care of
Bottom line , take care of old issues before bringing in new one's . The leaker must come forward or the city council has no meaning or purpose . I speake to the council to put more pressure on the leaker . We all know who it is , and he should come forward and resign before we go forward with anything .