Alleged Ethics Violation Irks Councilwomen


There was a question regarding last week’s work session… You can’t just cite the open meetings law when it suits your agenda.

–Councilwoman Christine Bello

During the budget hearings it was mentioned, but it was not part of an official meeting.

–Mayor Nick Valentine

I’m just speechless, I could not even believe it…. Nothing unethical took place.

–Councilwoman Marge Bell

The council knew what we had discussed, there was confusion among staff.

–Christine Bello

Mayor claims violation of Open Meetings Law

At the November 24, 2008 City Council Meeting, Mayor Nick Valentine criticized Councilwomen Bell, Bello, and Dickinson for allegedly violating the Open Meetings Law. After Councilwoman Bello made a motion to change the Housing and Real Estate Development Coordinator position from full-time to part-time as an amendment to the 2009 budget, Valentine made his remarks:

We did discuss a variety of things over a couple of our meetings… On Thursday night, this did not make the checklist. What happened next, it did disturb me a little bit. The following day there was a series of conversation and emails by three of our council members. And in those discussions, consensus was that they did not want a full-time position, they wanted a part-time position. Three votes. Except that, that’s not how we do it, we do it through what we call the Open Meetings Rule, which is, you don’t decide, three people on what the votes going to be… We went over that today, we solved it by saying, we discuss it like we’re discussing it tonight, it can be amended as part of this budget… In a funny way, I feel bad nobody called me. I would have answered, and I would have talked about it and given my opinion.

Councilwoman Bello attempted to respond, saying, “Can I…”

Valentine: “No, that’s it…”

Bello: “But what you just said was not true.”

Valentine: “Those are my comments. Those are my comments on the amended part of the budget.”

Council did discuss the position at the 11/20/08 work session; consensus was position was “half-time”

Reviewing the videotape of the work session, the council did indeed discuss the full-time/part-time Housing position, during the CDBG 2009 budget discussion portion of the meeting.

Councilwoman Bell: Another question that I had was on the business development, $50,000. I thought we were not going to do that position.

Lourdes Zapata-Perez: That’s an existing position. That’s to fund the business specialist that we currently have on staff. So that pays for 70% of that staff person’s time. The remaining 30% is incorporated with the Newburgh 20/20 line.

Councilwoman Bell: Okay. And $35,000 for the property disposition?

Lourdes Zapata-Perez: That’s the housing… real estate personnel that we’ve talked about during the budget process. The council had agreed to fund it out of the CDBG program 09 budget on a half-time basis. My proposal to council at the budget meeting, because, again, I feel very strongly that it is a full-time position, due… given all the housing related and real estate related activities that are going on in the city, it really calls for a full-time position. With the memo I gave council at the budget meeting with my department, as part of that, there’s money in the 2008 CDBG position that is available. So my request to council is to approve it as a full-time position using half of 09 and half of 08.

Councilwoman Bell: And I guess where we left off with it was that, council said, asked for it to be part-time or to be at a consultant basis.

City Manager McGrane: But the CDBG budget, it is part-time, correct?

Lourdes Zapata-Perez: …(indicates it is)

City Manager McGrane: Right. So, approving this, is approving a half-time position. Approving the position in the budget is, actually, approving the full-time position that’s funded by CDBG, but if we just focus on this, this is the money for the half-time position. Whether or not it’s a half-time or a consultant, I think, it’s just allocating the money for this task in the 2009 CDBG budget. And you, the council had agreed to do that in your discussions on CDBG.

Council also discussed the position at the 11/13/08 work session

During this session, Councilwoman Bello recommends eliminating the position, Councilwoman Bell recommends the hiring of a consultant, and after City Manager McGrane defends making the position full-time Councilwoman Bello expresses frustration that the city manager defends positions the council would like to cut. (Primary discussion of this begins at 15:00.)


Would work session minutes have prevented the confusion?
According to an email from Councilwoman Bello,

The problem occurred when we were informed that even though we were asking for a part time person, Lourdes was stating that there were funds in the 2008 budget left over that they would combine to the 2009 amount and make it full time anyway. This was clearly contrary to what the majority of council had designated and that is exactly why Marge and I sent emails reaffirming our previously discussed position. I believe that Mary Ann made a phone call to reaffirm.
I do not recall at which budget meeting it was discussed but I know it was previously discussed.

While I may not be able to pin point the exact budget meeting in which we had the discussion on the Business Coordinator, the fact remains that if we had minutes, (as required by Open Meetings Law) our statements would be part of the public record, and this whole problem could have been avoided.


What is the issue?

The Times-Herald Record ran an article on the controversy, “Newburgh councilwomen suspect dirty tricks.” And today they ran an editorial “Jeers” to the “leaders in the City of Newburgh” regarding this, stating:

The issue, now as it was with other confrontations, goes far beyond the status of a single job or the cost to taxpayers. It comes down to the inability or unwillingness of all parties to talk openly about their disagreements and follow the rules of conduct that could lead to an agreement.

On reflection of the history of the meetings and their documentation, this does not seem to be the issue at all. Rather, it seems from the 11/20/08 meeting that the City Manager represented to the council that their wishes of the position being part-time were being honored by “approving a half-time position.”

According to the Open Meetings Law, it is not illegal for councilmembers to confer with one another, even by email. What would be “inconsistent” with the law would be making a collective decision over email. That is not what happened here.

December 1, 2008 | Newburgh Advocate | No Comments »

City Council Breaks Open Meetings Law

To commemorate gratuitious use of executive session

It’s time to award another Closed Door Award. This one goes to City Manager Jean Ann McGrane and Economic Development Director Robert McKenna for shutting out the public to a meeting that had a majority of the city council present and thus fell under the Open Meetings Law.

According to Jenny Loeb, a community organizer for Community Voices Heard, she and one of her organization’s members, Maretta Melvin, endeavored to attend a meeting this evening the council held to discuss the Master Plan. Mayor Valentine, Councilwoman Angelo, and Councilwoman Bell were already in attendance when Ms. Loeb and Ms. Melvin were asked to leave.

Marge Bell expressed concerns that it should be an open meeting and that closing it would be a violation of the law.

However, both Robert McKenna and Jean Ann McGrane told Ms. Loeb the meeting did not fall under the Law and that she and Ms. Melvin were not welcome. Ms. Loeb explains that “they said it was considered ‘staff providing information.’ We asked if the Council members were speaking as well, and they confirmed that they were.”

To shed light on how the City Council broke the Open Meetings Law, I turn to Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government. The following text is transcribed from the video below, recorded during Mr. Freeman’s visit to the Newburgh Free Library in the fall of 2006.

WPvideo 1.10

What is a meeting?

The Open Meetings Law applies to meetings of public bodies. A public body is a group of two or more, that would either be elected or appointed to carry out some sort of governmental function collectively as a body.

Like a city council, a school board, a town board, a planning board, a zoning board of appeals, a state assembly or senate; all of those groups of people, who function collectively as a group, constitute public bodies required to comply with the Open Meetings Law.

But back in 1977, the law defined the term “meeting” to mean the formal convening of a public body for the purpose of officially transacting public business.

Well, gee, all over the state, all kinds of boards and councils and committees were saying, look, we’re not conducting a meeting, we’re just going to talk. We’re not going to vote, we’re not going to take action. We won’t be transacting public business. This isn’t a meeting, it’s a workshop, it’s a work session, it’s a study session, it’s everything but a meeting.

Now, I have no idea whether there’s anybody here today who might have been on the city council in 1978, but the contention was that the so-called work session was held solely for the purpose of discussion and there’s no intention to take action were not meetings, and that they fell beyond the coverage of the Open Meetings Law.

Well, anybody here from the Times Herald Record?

Well, they sued. And they won. And the case went all the way to the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, and the Court of Appeals said very simply, that any time a majority – a quorum, if you will – gathers for the purpose of conducting public business, that’s a meeting covered by the Open Meetings Law, even if there’s no intent to take action, irrespective of the manner in which the gathering may be characterized as.

Now, I know that the city still has work sessions, but they’re open to the public.

Right? Damn well better be. They have to be open.

Thus, even though the meeting was characterized as “staff providing information,” because there was a quorum, the meeting should have been open to the public.

Ms. Loeb believes the council may have been trying to escape her organization’s scrutiny. CVH is engaged in a campaign “to get [the council] to support better protections for affordable housing for Newburgh residents in the Master Plan.”

Will it take another lawsuit to assure the council complies with the law?

June 3, 2008 | Newburgh Advocate | Tags: , | 4 Comments »

Inaugural Closed Door Award

To commemorate gratuitious use of executive session

Today’s post marks the inauguration of the “Closed Door Award,” an award that is given to distinguish gratuitous use of executive session by a governmental body.

The gratuitous use of executive session is anathema to good government and open government.

Now there is a way to recognize when a governmental body inappropriately shuts the public out. Feel free to give your board, council, or committee an award each time you witness gratuitous use. Count up the worst offenders by year’s end and perhaps we’ll have the opportunity to make another award or form of recognition for the Most Closed Door Awards.

Today’s Closed Door Award goes to the Orange County Legislature’s Physical Services Committee, for calling an executive session for Lenny Llerena’s presentation “Update re: hangars to be built at Airport.”

Mr. Llerena’s presentation was first on the agenda, and it was only after the presentation was set up, complete with powerpoint visuals projected onto a screen, that the call for “executive session” was made. There was a pause until an administrative assistant helpfully suggested the rationale of “contract negotiations.”

I have made an artistic video to commemorate this award, complete with the audio of Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the New York State Committee on Open Government, accompanied by the visuals of the video I recorded while waiting at the Orange County Government Center for the Physical Services Committee to return from executive session. Mr. Freeman was the guest of the Newburgh Free Library, where this audio comes from, in the fall of 2006.

Congratulations!

WPvideo 1.10
WPvideo 1.10
WPvideo 1.10
May 21, 2008 | Newburgh Advocate | Tags: , , | No Comments »