PROBLEMS OF THE PUBLIC

RESIDENT COMPLAINTS

Dale Clarke, 379 Indian Church Road, stated that he attempted to contact Supervisor Clark on numerous occasions and left a phone number where he could be reached, but never received a return phone call.

Supervisor Clark responded that in his 12+ years as Supervisor of the Town of West Seneca, Mr. Clarke was the only person that he refused to call back because of the constant unreasonable phone calls. Supervisor Clark considered Mr. Clarke's behavior to be more of a harassing nature than that of a citizen looking for information and he did not believe it would be very productive to engage in telephone conversations. Supervisor Clark offered to correspond in writing with Mr. Clarke or address his issues at the Town Board meeting.

Mr. Clarke requested an example of when he had given Supervisor Clark a hard time or the reason he would not communicate with him.

Supervisor Clark responded that he did not want to discuss this matter at this time.

Mr. Clarke felt that Supervisor Clark was afraid of people who did not agree with him or who had different ideas than he had and that it was Supervisor Clark's way or no way. Mr. Clarke did not believe that he was being fairly represented.

Supervisor Clark stated that Mr. Clarke used abusive language and behavior on the telephone that he did not think was reasonable.

Mr. Clarke stated that he could not have been abusive because he never talked to Supervisor Clark on the telephone.

Supervisor Clark commented that Mr. Clarke was politically motivated this year.

PROBLEMS OF THE PUBLIC

RESIDENT COMPLAINTS   (continued)

Mr. Clarke questioned why Supervisor Clark always felt that someone with a different point of view was politically motivated. He further questioned why Supervisor Clark was afraid to talk to the public and noted that he had stopped to see him at his office several times, but he was not there.

Supervisor Clark responded that he was not afraid to talk to the public and suggested that Mr. Clarke make an appointment to see him as a common business courtesy.

RESIDENTS QUESTION WORK SESSIONS AND AGENDA PUBLICATION

Karen Lucachik, 61 Greenmeadow Drive, stated that she used to attend School Board meetings twice each month and one of them was called a Work Session. On March 15th she attended the Town Board meeting and questioned the Town Board members as to when they met to discuss the issues that appeared on the agenda. The response Mrs. Lucachik received was that the discussions were done at the annual budget meeting in October. However, in the April 8th issue of the West Seneca Bee, Deputy Town Attorney William Bond stated that the board avoided bickering in public because they tended to do their arguing in the back room. Mrs. Lucachik thought that this constituted a meeting and noted that all meetings were supposed to be open to the public.

Councilman Hicks stated that the last question Mrs. Lucachik asked the board members at the March 15th meeting was regarding the appointment of town employees. Mr. Bond told her that this was done during the budget hearings. The agenda items were a totally different situation.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan stated that the Open Meetings Law required that any meetings the Town Board members had where they were not discussing things of a confidential nature, such as personnel matters or pending litigation, be held at an open meeting. When the board held a Work Session in either Supervisor Clark's office or the Caucus Room, notice was given to the news media that the board would be meeting and whether or not the items to be attended to fell within the requirements of the Open Meetings Law. Mr. Greenan noted that all the board members received the agenda in advance of the meeting and would contact the various department heads if they had a question on an item prior to the meeting.

Councilman Graber stated that when the board members received the agenda, it was incumbent upon them individually to contact the department heads if they had any questions. He noted that they did not communicate with each other on anything, except for personnel issues. Councilman Graber further noted that some items were automatic and referred to this meeting's agenda and the appointments in the Highway Department. Those appointments were all Highway Supt. Pat Finnegan's choice and the board had nothing to say about it.

Mrs. Lucachik commented that other towns listed their meetings in the newspaper and there was often Work Sessions listed along with the Town Board meetings.

PROBLEMS OF THE PUBLIC

RESIDENTS QUESTION WORK SESSIONS AND AGENDA PUBLICATION    (continued)

Supervisor Clark stated that the board members obtained the information they needed to question or challenge an item prior to the meeting. For example, if one of the councilmen did not like something that was proposed by Supervisor Clark and appeared on the agenda, they would express their disagreement on the phone or in person before the meeting.

Councilman Hicks stated that the West Seneca Town Board members chose not to grandstand like Amherst or Cheektowaga, and instead they just got things done.

Mrs. Lucachik did not consider it grandstanding and thought that the public would like to see some debate among the board members.

Councilman Graber responded that the board really did not have many issues that required debate other than public hearings for rezoning property. If Walmart were to ever come before the Town Board, there would certainly be a wide disparity of opinions. Other communities like Amherst had a lot of public hearings because they were always bringing in new subdivisions and businesses. Councilman Graber stated that the board members did have disagreements, but they did not believe it did any good to attack each other in public. He commented that he had many heated arguments with Supervisor Clark and walked out of his office several times, but eventually they came to a compromise where all the taxpayers won. Councilman Graber did not want to be like the U.S. Congress where they did not talk to each other because they were from a different political party or like New York State who went for 20 consecutive years without an on time budget. He wanted to continue to work for all the constituents through the art of compromise, acting professionally, and running the town like a business.

Dale Clarke, 379 Indian Church Road, had copies of the last ten Town Board meeting minutes and there were no "nay" votes from the board members. He thought that once in a while there should be a disagreement on an issue or a difference of opinion. Mr. Clarke suggested that the board members use their imagination and come up with some new ideas.

Councilman Hicks responded that the agenda items were only internal bookkeeping and there was nothing to differ about.

Councilman Graber referred to some issues where the board members disagreed such as the Tops Market on Harlem Road, the HUD house, and the bridge at the Burchfield Center. Those were debatable issues.

Mr. Clarke further commented that he understood the Organization Meeting was supposed to be published; however, the meeting was not published in the legal section of the West Seneca Bee so people did not know when it was taking place.

Supervisor Clark stated that the West Seneca Bee was the official newspaper for the town, but it was up to the Bee as to what they published.

Councilman Graber stated that he would speak with West Seneca Bee reporter Beth Hutchinson and relay Mr. Clarke's complaint about the meetings not being published.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan stated that the Organization Meeting was normally held within a few days after the first of the year and the agenda was the same agenda since at least the 1960's. The Organization Meeting outlined all the things the board was required to do annually by law. Appointments were made and salaries were updated based on what was approved at the budget meeting held the previous year. Fiscal policies and purchasing policies were also set at the Organization Meeting. The meeting was generally uneventful and most of the items were already addressed at the budget meeting.

PROBLEMS OF THE PUBLIC

RESIDENT QUESTIONS WORK SESSIONS AND AGENDA PUBLICATION    (continued)

Mr. Clarke felt that there were things at the Organization Meeting that the residents of the town should be aware of, such as the benefits package the board members received.

Mr. Greenan responded that the current board members received the same benefits as previous board members got dating back to the 1960's and they received these according to the Blue & White Collar contracts. He further commented that the true comparison should be how public officials in West Seneca were paid compared to those in other towns with the same size population.

Mr. Clarke commented that the salaries and benefits were fine when things were going good, but even businesses cut back when times got tough. The current board members did not cut back; they gave themselves a raise, and he thought the public should be aware of this. Mr. Clarke further questioned why the Organization Meeting was held at 5:00 PM and the other Town Board meetings were held at 7:30 PM.

Councilman Osmanski stated that it was past practice to hold the Organization Meeting at 5:00 PM and many other towns held their meetings during the day rather than at night.

STUDENT QUESTIONS BUDGET AND SPENDING

A student at West Seneca Christian School questioned how many people lived in West Seneca ten years ago and if the budget and spending had increased over the ten years.

Councilman Osmanski noted that most senior citizens received a tax exemption at 65 years of age, so there was less revenue for the town.

Councilman Graber further noted that when he was in high school the population of the town was 59,000 yet there were not as many homes as there were now.

The student questioned if the largest expense of the town was employees.

Supervisor Clark responded that the largest expense was by far the employees.

Councilman Graber commented that some people thought the new subdivisions brought a lot of tax revenue to the town, but if there were four children in one family and it was $10,000 to educate each child the cost would be $40,000. The property owner was not paying $40,000 in taxes so the rest of the town was actually picking up the slack. The senior developments, condominiums, townhouses, and patio homes were actually the best source of revenue for the town because the town provided virtually no services to them and the tax revenue helped to offset the increase in costs.

PROBLEMS OF THE PUBLIC

STATUS OF MASTER PLAN

Janine Pokrandt, 1600 Orchard Park Road, stated that she had attended a number of Town Board meetings in the 1980's and 1990's and she was appalled by the behavior of the board members. She felt that they had attacked the citizens who spoke at this meeting and was embarrassed that they were treated that way. Mrs. Pokrandt commented that it was difficult to get up and speak at the microphone and asked that the board members have more respect for the citizens that did. Mrs. Pokrandt further questioned the status of the Master Plan.

Town Attorney Tim Greenan stated that he had received an e-mail that the public hearing would be scheduled for some time either at the end of April or early May.

Supervisor Clark stated that the board members were not directly involved in the Master Plan and had turned it over to the consultants and others so it would be less biased.

Councilman Osmanski stated that they were looking to finalize the Master Plan and set a public hearing, but one of the consultant's employees that was working integrally on the project left to work for another firm. This was part of the reason the Master Plan was delayed for a month or two. The next committee meeting for the Master Plan was scheduled for April 22nd and the public hearing should be scheduled at that time.

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

APPOINTMENT OF JOHN PANGELLO AS SANITATION MEO

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to terminate John Pangello as Sanitation Laborer and appoint John Pangello as Sanitation MEO at a rate of $14.92 per hour effective April 12, 2004 and authorize the Supervisor to complete and sign the necessary forms for Erie County Personnel.

GRANT FOR DARE EXPENDITURES

Motion by Councilman Hicks, seconded by Councilman Graber, to authorize the Supervisor to execute the DCJS grant #TM38471 for the period of April 1, 2003 through September 15, 2005 in the amount of $7000 to supplement expenditures incurred through the Town of West Seneca Police Department's DARE program.

SUPERVISOR COMMENTS ON BOARD CONDUCT

Supervisor Clark commented on the spirited discussions that occurred at this meeting and stated that the board members liked to behave and handle business in a way that most residents would like. Some residents may view the board's cooperation and agreement on agenda items as a boring exercise in town government, but Supervisor Clark stated that he was around when West Seneca was viewed as a spectacle like other towns were now being viewed. He thought there was unprofessional conduct at that time and a lot of grandstanding, pursuit of private agendas, verbal abuse, and acting unkindly towards other people. Supervisor Clark thought these were all things that the bulk of the citizens did not appreciate. He felt that disagreement was fine, but the items on the agenda were not very controversial. Supervisor Clark stated that he preferred to approach things in a professional and calm manner, and if he had a disagreement with another board member, he would call or visit them one-on-one. He further noted that he was responsive and did return phone calls to citizens, but he would not communicate with someone that he did not feel was acting reasonably or could treat him in a civil manner without abuse.

PRESENTATION OF COMMUNICATIONS BY BOARD MEMBERS AND DEPARTMENT HEADS

ARCHITECT ENGAGED TO CONTINUE SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER STUDY

Town Attorney Tim Greenan asked the board members what they would like him to do with the continuation of the senior citizens complex. Three things that came out at the public hearing last week were: 1) further exploration of the expansion of the building to the east (Option #1); 2) having some renderings of Option #2 & #3; and 3) a better comparison of the costs of the options being explored. Mr. Greenan requested authorization to continue to engage the architect to continue with the plan up to the amount of the grant. The first part of the budget was an agreement with the architect to put the preliminary report together for $14,000. The initial thing that was contemplated was that he would look at an addition that had been proposed by a committee of the senior citizens. As he got into that, there was some determination that it did not meet the needs that they expressed and there was not enough square footage. The report was expanded to look at the whole building.

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Hicks, to authorize the Town Attorney to engage James Bammel of Fontanese Folts Aubrecht Ernst Bammel Architects as the umbrella organization to continue developing the options at the Senior Citizens Center with respect to fine tuning the report concerning the possible renovation and expansion of the Senior Citizens Center in an amount not to exceed the grant covered by the County of Erie.

On the question, Supervisor Clark cautioned Mr. Greenan to watch the costs incurred and monitor the hiring of subcontractors to ensure that they fell within the town's mission.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Supervisor Clark, seconded by Councilman Osmanski, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M.

PATRICIA C. WISNIEWSKI, RMC/CMC
TOWN CLERK