1992-07-20
TOWN BOARD MEETING
JULY 20, 1992
7:00 p.m.
MTG. #75
RES.#388-398
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
Supervisor Michel Brandt
Councilman Susan Goetz
Councilman Nick Caimano
Councilman Pliney Tucker
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT
Councilman Betty Monahan
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN SUSAN GOETZ
SUPERVISOR MICHEL BRANDT-Opened the Meeting-Public Hearing-Code of Ethics The Code has
been worked and re-worked and we are down to the final draft and that has been out for a period of time,
proper legal notice was sent out?
TOWN CLERK-Yes
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We will now open that to the public to comment on this code of ethics as
proposed and you are welcome to tell us anything you would like to about this code of ethics. The floor is
yours.
BRUCE CARR-Good evening, my name is Bruce Carr I live on Lynnfield Drive in the Town of
Queensbury, I have a letter from my wife who could not be here this evening, she would like her opinion
known...requested that the letter be read into the record.. The letter is in opposition, I am opposed to this
law, I do not believe that the Town of Queensbury needs the broad brush approach that this law takes to
solve this perception. To take care of the perception that the Town is unethical or that ethics are running
rapid..we have a code of ethics in place, New York State has a code of ethics in place, I think what you
may be looking at is the advisory board and the ethics board itself might be the two necessary items and not
all this other language and not this disclosure which you have in the law before you. There are a couple of
items I would like to bring up and at the first meeting public hearing it was brought up that I am an attorney
in town working with a firm, there was a conflict between me being on the Zoning Board and the rendering
of service to people from the Town of Queensbury in front of the Town Court and that should have been
recodified but I do not think it was done properly. If you look at it, if I ever became, which I hope to do
someday, became a partner of this firm, it still says that any activity that they did for a client I would have
interest in as defined in the local law. So then subparagraph g under the items that are prohibited if you
receive or enter into any agreement, expressed or implied, for services to be rendered for a third party in
relation to any matter before any agency or board or Queensbury Economic Development Corporation of
the Town of Queensbury, now to me the Town Court is still a part of the Town of Queensbury and that
would mean that I could not and the firm could not enter into any agreement to represent a client in the
Town Court for a speeding ticket or for any matter before the Town of Queensbury. I do not think that was
what you had meant to do with this law but because of this broad language utilized in this there is going to
be a lot of pit falls that people are going to get involved in. I think it is for this reason that lot of volunteers
on these boards are really questioning whether or not it is worth their time to devote any time to this
community because of the fact that they may have to give up part of your lively hood. I do not think it is
fair to place a lot of people in that position. There are a couple other things in this law that I guess I would
just point out that I think some mistakes have been made. Under one of the, if! can find it, under
disclosure
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What page are you on?
MR. CARR-I believe I am on page 13, under paragraph g when it says that you, before the disclosure
statements are opened up or it says within five days of the disclosure statement being opened and I just
want to know, will the people be notified before or after the fact that people have looked at their disclosure,
is it a chance for somebody to have pre-knowledge of somebody looking into their affairs or is it after the
fact? Mr. Tucker, could you answer me that, I guess?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-That has not been determined yet as far as I know, rules and regulations have
not been set down for the board. Have they Mike?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No.
MR. CARR-Well, this is part of the law.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You are on page 13?
MR. CARR-It says that the employee, official, officer would be notified within five days, well I just want
to know five days prior to opening the statement or is it five days after or ...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What is it Paul?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe I can help, at least it was my understanding at the time this or originally
discussed if you will recall that there was no notification provisions whatsoever put into the statute and at
the time it was developed, at least my feeling on it was is that it was not necessarily designed to give
advance notice but just to give notice that somebody is looking at the statements. I think that was the idea,
now, whether they give it in advance or whether they give it after the fact the law does not specify that it
will be up to the ethics board to choose which they think is the better. But, I think the real just of what the
Board was trying to do when they did this was to give notice that something was going on. That way the
person knew they were being looked at. It wasn't really, because there really is no mechanism for you, put
into the statute to go in and contest if they want to look at them because the ethics board has the right to
examine them if they feel, if they have received a complaint or what ever else may have prompted them to
look at them, but at least it puts you on notice so you can follow up on it at a later time.
MR. CARR-It further says at the quarterly meeting in April and this is on page 14 Fl at the quarterly
meeting in April the Ethics Advisory Council will review filed disclosure statements and code of ethics
review forms which have been submitted, my question on that is, I thought also you could submit a
disclosure statement that was sealed only to be opened in the event of a conflict arising, and yet this reads
as if the advisory council is going to review the contents of every form whether or not there is any question
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The ceiling mechanism here again is my recollection that was not in the statute
originally but it was put in so that a person could feel comfortable in submitting the form into the Town
government channels without worrying that some Town Official is going to see it. It was always
contemplated once it got to the advisory board they would be able to look at them.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-How would they know whether the report is complete or not if its sealed?
Somebody has got to look at it to see whether the report was filed.
MR. CARR-There is no unethical behavior on a persons part... there is no unethical complaint or complaint
about his ethics there is no point in looking at the disclosure statement because...
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It states in here though that if you do not file one you are liable for a fine up to
ten thousand dollars.
MR. CARR-Right if you intentionally use a blank and seal it so that if you were ever....and it is left blank
and you intentionally did it then you are subject to the fine which is to encourage people to comply with it
but it does not mean I do not see what the purpose is of allowing to seal it when it is going to be open for
five to ten people to look at anyway.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It is going to be five people.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It could be ten if both councils look at it.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Only one board looks at it and then it is sent on to the next board the way the
law reads. So there would be five people looking at it.
MR. CARR-On page 16 under F2 there is a word left out, where the Ethics Board deems a conflict of
interest or other inappropriate adversely reflecting on the integrity of the town government, an
inappropriate what?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Where are you?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You might have an old copy.
TOWN CLERK-Page 15 under F number 2
You have got the underlined version they have the cleaned up one.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-After inappropriate Paul, there is a word missing.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-You know what it might be, conduct perhaps.
MR. CARR-In reviewing the ethics advisory council and under the ..non allowed...by town officials seems
pretty specific and yet the advisory council can rule on areas and again I am looking under, let me be exact
place because I do not have the same sheets that you do, 14.9 F4 that is one of the places at the very end it
says or appearance of impropriety, I was wondering if anyone could define for me what is meant by that?
If it appears unethical is somebody guilty of something or is it only if they specifically violate this law?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I think this would be up to the ethics advisory council to determine that.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe I could comment on that, I think that, that particular sentence if you read it
the way I interpret to be in its context it is really talking about a situation where the ethics advisory council
can re-write or amend its decision and then it is referring to the previous act that would have caused them
to write the decision in the beginning which would have been the proported conflict or appearance of
impropriety, in otherwords its some complaint, something gave rise to the action of the board and the
language it is using here is very general in nature because at this point you would not know what it would
be but then it is saying but the real point of this sentence I do not think is so much to say that we are saying
something about appearance about impropriety but rather we are saying something about the board being
able to re-write its decision. So, if something gave rise to it whether it was some complaint, whether it was
unfounded or not founded whether it was an appearance of impropriety whether it was a conflict and they
decided for some reason to re-write that decision that is what this addresses how that is done.
MR. CARR-Then in the next section when they say they are going to recommend to the official how to
rectify the appearance of impropriety are they going to get into basically how to live our lives I mean if
they do not like the way it looks you know, even though it is not wrong?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well whenever you get into a appearance of impropriety of course there is going to
be some discretionary powers there and I think the individual effected obviously would take that for what it
is worth in terms it is not violative of the law that is one thing if it is an appearance it is another thing. We
as attorneys have the same type of language that appears in our own code of ethics that tells us to beware of
and watch out for even the appearance of impropriety don't step into that realm. This would be the same
type of thing and if it is a suggestion or recommendation I think it would be taken from what it is worth in
terms of a board making that recommendation.
MR. CARR-Going back to the disclosure, I am wondering why it is only financial information that has to
be disclosed there are a lot of other things that can put pressure on people to take action one way or the
other and they do not seem to be addressed at all has to do with money. Although the pre-able here
expresses that it may be more than financial it says individuals who hold official positions as defined in this
law constitute a distinct class of people whose public and personal affairs reflect upon, and relate to, the
credibility and quality of government. I was just wondering shouldn't it say disclosure be a little more full
than just who might owe you money or do you owe money to or who pays your paycheck? It appears to
me that there is a lot of influence that could be peddled there are other relationships involving people other
than just money. Was money the only issue brought up that was unethical behavior was that the decision of
the board?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Well, one particular case that comes to mind to me is, the Chairman of the
Planning Board setting on the Planning Board making decisions for the public and owning a piece of
Hiland Park over here and holding paper. By God that is a conflict according to me.
MR. CARR-I do not argue that I amjust saying that there are other things that should be addressed.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-President Regan had jelly beans I do not know if that was to get influence or not
but...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What was that?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I said President Regan had ajar or jelly beans that maybe that was unethical but
I do not think that is what we are addressing we are addressing money issues and they are pretty universal,
people understand those. I think everybody understands them quite well. There have been some conduct
that many of us have seen that we think are unethical and did involve money. That is what we are
addressing, if you think the code needs to be strengthen why don't you give us some language you think
that would help strengthen it and we will consider that. Right now, this is the law we are addressing and
keep your comments to that and go on.
MR. CARR-All I am doing is commenting on the law that is before me. The other question I have as an
Attorney is did you intentionally or unintentionally exempt attorneys from this law? I understand that
under 14.4a when you define the officer or official employee you exempt out officer, judge, justice or
employees of the unified court system, Paul you might want to check this with the appellate division, all
Attorneys are considered officers of the court system and under your definitions here would be exempt.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That was not my intent at the time I took that out of the language that I thought I got
from the State code of ethics and it was just intended to only effect the Court System because they are
guided as you know, by the Judiciary law.
MR. CARR-I think my comments are ..attorneys are guided ...attorneys acting in a public capacity.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There is no question that the Attorneys Code of Ethics does address those issues but
when this was drafted and obviously although I started with a draft version from the Town I obviously
worked on this on behalf of the Town Board I can tell you as I went through and modified it and added it, it
was not my intent to eliminate the attorneys and from my discussion with the Town Board it was always
my understanding that my office as Town Attorney was to be covered as well as any other attorney that is
working for the Town government and if that has to be somehow clarified in this to make sure, it says
except for attorneys or whatever the Board could add that language, if that is there intent, I believe it was.
MR. CARR - I guess in closing I would just say that I think this law is far to broad I think you have a lot of
language in here that know one can possibly understand I am not even sure if I asked everyone of you what
each particular section meant that you would be able to agree on what that meant. I would also urge you to
wait until Mrs. Monahan gets back, she told me that she had informed this board back in April she would
be out this week and that she is strongly opposed to this law I guess that is no secret and I think a law of
this nature that has such far reaching effects in this town that every segment of this town should be fairly
represented. Mrs. Monahan is the elected official of Ward I and I think it would have been just as easy to
hold this meeting two weeks from now when she would have been off vacation so she could have her say
and fairly represent her constituents.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else like to make a comment?
MR. FRANK INGLES-I would like to address, I have looked over this thing and I had a question that this
gentlemen ahead of me raised, is it the Town Boards desire to exempt attorneys from this law?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No obsoletely they did not. It was strictly a matter of the Court itself, I think that
is all our discussion.
MR. INGLES-I was wondering that because most attorneys are considered officers of the court.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-This is not if you noticed the phrase is not officer of the court but an officer or
employee of the unified court system and when I wrote that I interpreted that to mean a working person
who is the employ of the uniform court system. If it needs to be modified to correct that obviously that can
be made. But it was not intended to exclude attorneys. In other language in the law would indicate that.
MR. INGLES-The other gentlemen that preceded me seem to have some, his remarks by saying it was too
broad and yet specifically tell where he thought it was too broad because I know in my previous experience
what you gentlemen are trying to address is very difficult, and where I came from in Massachusetts one of
our problems was the attorneys wanted to serve the Town and then later went off and appear in front of the
board. I think that one of the things that you are trying to address here I am not sure you have done it if
they do serve on the board they cannot or any members of their firm appear before town boards. I know
what you are trying to address and it is a very difficult job to do and I hope you continue to do it. Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else?
MR. KEN PARKER-My name is Ken Parker I live at 7 Centennial Drive I have been a resident of
Queensbury for a lot, a lot of years. Mr. Carr asked a couple of questions I was going to ask and my
primary one being the definition of appearance of impropriety i which I did not see it when I read it a
couple of different times it does not appear until about page 14 and it had an explanation of the appearance
of impropriety I am still concerned about the vagueness of that wording whereby rumors can float around,
until rumors are confirmed they become very poisonous and very dangerous and I am wondering if the
Town Board has addressed this or not? So that this kind of thing cannot happen and someone gets
blemished that is a volunteer that served on the Town Board or on the some volunteer board?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I would like to address that. I talked to Mr. Myers in Wilton quite a bit about
this and he
MR. PARKER-I do not know who Mr. Myers is?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Well, he is the Head of the Ethics Advisory Council in Wilton and he said that
this vehicle with the Ethics Advisory Council takes care of a lot of the problems that you are concerned
about. If somebody comes to the council with a problem maybe the person does not even realize that there
is a problem and they found it very helpful to dispel rumors that you are describing. So, I feel that this
code will take care of that and the Ethics Council will be a help to everyone concerned.
MR. PARKER -lam not sure that I agree with you Mrs. Goetz it allows people in my way of thinking here
it allows people to accentuate on rumors rather than coming to a person with facts.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-How so?
MR. PARKER-If I had heard something from our Planning Board and I came and I said I think this guy is
doing something but I have no basis of fact, how is this going to be ...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Through the Ethics Advisory Council, they will look into it. I think what you are
describing and what you are worried about is going to be taken care of by this vehicle.
MR. PARKER-As the complainant am I going to have to go to the Ethics Advisory Council?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I do not believe so, no. They will just look into the problem.
MR. PARKER-If! make this charge lets say it is groundless charge against him or ...does he get a chance
to find out why I said that or ...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-We talked about that and I do not remember...what did we determine Paul?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-My personal feeling, if you do it in public he should have a chance to answer
you.
MR. PARKER-So, the only way this operates is if! come to this facility and make that statement about the
person.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Not necessarily so. You could go to the Board.
MR. PARKER -lam getting a split yes and no here, so.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Why not, why couldn't he go to the Board?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-He could go to anybody he could come to this board are you talking about the
Town Board?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-No the Advisory Board.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-He could go.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The Ethics Advisory Board.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I am not sure I understand your question on that?
MR. PARKER-Why not tell me where I should go not tell me where to go.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I would never want to do that Ken. You would make a complaint to the
Advisory Council in writing.
MR. PARKER-In a private matter, in a private manner.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yes. Because, I think, would you be worried that they would find out who was
complaining, is that your problem?
MR. PARKER-I suppose that could be, myself personally I do not think so, but I suppose it could be.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right, we did, that question did come up and we talked about it because people
were afraid that, one man I remember, at one of the public hearings was concerned if he made a complaint
with the person that he was complaining about, know that he did it. What did we determine on that, Paul?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The constitution says you can face your accuser doesn't it?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-It is my understanding that, the person who makes the complaint obviously would
be known in the end, my recollection is on this is that when a complaint is filed it is filed with the Ethics
Board and the Ethics Board in turn has to do a couple of things, one of which is to determine whether or not
it should ultimately become public and second of all they give at one point an opportunity for the applicant
or the person being complained against to respond, so there is a response mechanism built into the law.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-But this is all done within the Advisory Board, right?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-It is not,
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, no, the, part of the phase involves the town board and the other ethics
advisory council, it is a multi loop type of thing, where once decisions are made, things are forwarded,
response times are given an opportunity it is a blend of the three boards all involved together.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-But my understanding is many times these problems are just taken care of at the
advisory council level and never get beyond. Which is a big plus I feel.
MR. PARKER-That is your understanding, you are certainly entitled to it, I am looking for your research
into the actual happenings, if Wilton has this and if someone else has had this and if the Town of Wilton
has got it that is not the sole reason for us to have it, but how have these things worked. Are they just
saying that every case they have ever had in front of them has been carried out to the nth degree and
everybody is happy or satisfied or...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Yes, that is my, yes, very few cases have gone to the Ethics Board in Wilton, if
we are going to use them as an example. They feel it has been a great help because it dispels a lot of
problems before they, well actually it dispelled questions before they became a problem and they find that
very advantageous.
MR. PARKER -lam still hung up on this appearance of impropriety, as an example, .. .on the Town of
Queensbury summer ..etc your business is the only privately owned business listed on the back of
seventeen municipal locations which there are sixteen municipal locations plus West Mountain, is that an
act of impropriety?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I do not know, I did not publish it and it has been on there since 1987 I am told
by the Recreation Dept. when I took office I told the Recreation Dept. I did not want any programs at West
Mt. which the Town has always had and I told them to stop them and I did not know that was out until later
but, if that is, then we are giving you a mechanism to raise hell about Brandt and the way he runs the
government and I think you would love that so you ought to be in favor of the law as far as I can see or else
you do not understand what we are doing, Ken. This gives a mechanism so that if someone feels that any
official of the government is mis-using their office that person can go to the ethics board with their
complaint. They do not have to hire an attorney, they do not have to start an action in court they can go to
a citizens board and handle it and I think it is a beautiful mechanism as compared to what we have because
in the past I have seen letters that have come to the Town that complained about a breach of ethics and
there they died. Nobody did a danm thing about it because they choose to ignore them. You will not
choose to ignore them anymore. The only action left to the complainer in those days is to go to court and
here we are making a Board you can take that complaint to the Board and the Board has got to address it
that is their charge under the law.
MR. PARKER -You made a statement that was published in the paper quite some time back that if anybody
had not seen some of these or all of these or most of these ethics violations they must have been blind, I
think you made that as a direct statement to Betty. I was wondering what specific examples, you might
encourage us to support this legislation?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I won't discuss what I have seen in the past in this hearing we are discussing this
law in this hearing. Afterwards I would be glad to tell you about it.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Mr. Parker, I would like to comment. I have set out there where you are
setting a lot of years.
MR. PARKER-I have seen your name in the paper many, many times.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-A lot of years, and I have got right out there in the audience in a public
meeting, right Mr. Dusek, he has been here, and brought up Code of Ethics violations right. Mrs. Monahan
has set on the Boards, she is not here tonight, she is not in favor of this law but they did not do a thing. Not
one danm thing.
MR. PARKER-Then the complaint should not have been dropped.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-No, they had to hire an attorney and go to court, here you do not have to hire an
attorney, isn't that nice, isn't that nice.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I would have to hire an attorney and I could not afford it.
MR. PARKER - I agree with most of Bruces comments and he took a lot of them away from me that I do
think it is going to discourage many citizens from making the kind of financial disclosure that you are
asking them to make to serve as volunteers if it is necessary for continuance in Town government.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I would like to comment on that, we have had a wonderful response to our
advertisement for people to be on the different boards and I do not think that is going to be a problem. That
is a choice you have to make if you are going to have to work within government.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-The know, all the people who we have talked to
have been told that this code may become law and it did not bother any of them.
MR. PARKER-By reading between the lines the last ten to fifteen minutes or so that if this was brought to
a vote tonight there would be at least three positive votes for this law.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Stick around you might see it.
Any other comments?
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I have been in favor of it since January, I do not know about anybody else.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Certainly have taken a public stand from the time I ran for office. Yes.
MS. PAT JAMESON-I just had, Mr. Carr was talking about the language other than financial, he said
language you would consider in the paper about a week ago, a neighboring town had an ethics problem
and the citizens quoted from their ethics law, which said no town employee shall use or have to use their
official position to secure unwarranted privilege, or exemptions for himself or others. Now if that said that
in the new law ...1 wonder if you might want to word it in plain english.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Paul can you handle that?
Where is it in the copy that you have? You are citing a specific...
MS. PAT JAMESON-I did not see it in the new...
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-In the new updated one?
MS. PAT JAMESON-I do not see it worded like that, anyplace, I wonder if it is something you might want
to put in, in plain english.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There is no exact words in that, of that nature in this law that I know of anywhere, a
number of areas cover that in other fashions, foreinstance in the area on page 4 paragraph f where it says
you cannot solicit directly or indirectly any gift or receive or accept any gift that has any value where in the
form of services loan travel or any other form, that is pretty broad to, and if you are looking at an employee
who is trying to secure favors presumably it has some sort of monitory value, now I suppose there could be
favors that do not have a monitory value which...That is up to the board if they want to add something like
that.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Certainly we can look at that and look at it as an amendment to the law.
MS.JAMESON-My other comment is on page 12 of the new copy.. just ahead of 14.9 you left out
something that was in the original one which I have a copy of that, it is a whole, the whole number 4 it was,
Public Access
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Public Access...
MS. JAMESON-Public Access this was on the original one and the first paragraph said the Town Board
recognizes that public access to disclosure statements filed by town officials and employees will enhance
public confidence can deter or uncover conflict of interest or corruption and then it is a.b.c.d. tells any
citizens would go about getting public access. I wonder if that was left out by mistake or if not why did
you take it out?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There was a revision made and it now, the access regulations appear on page 16
number 7 I think, the primary area and it substantially changed to basically restrict access. Where as before
it was complete access it is now been reversed and it is restricted access and it is basically following the
same regulations that are set up by the State, New York State. I think that is a choice that the Board made.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we got a lot of input people saying well if I put all this information for
public access, a sales man will come in take down all my data and share it with everybody else and that did
not seem like what we were trying to do at all. So, we decided to restrict it to the board of ethics to handle
and not make it public in its.
MS. JAMESON-.. the whole paragraph...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We changed that dramatically.
MS. JAMESON-I wondered if you forgot it?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No, we did it deliberately.
Anyone else? For the record, the official record.
MR. GILBERT -I live on Dunhams Bay In general I think with the reasons that you stated it is worth
while to have an ethics law. I find though that in certain areas I have extreme difficulty in understanding
what some of the words are suppose to convey. For example what I am really asking is how does he go
back to make some slight changes here or there?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We can always amend the law once it has been passed that is relatively easy to
do.
MR. GILBERT -Just right up front there is an example on page 2 B 1 it says his or her spouse and
unemancipated children and dependents except a contract of employment with the Town of Queensbury, I
do not understand what that is trying to say.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Do you want to explain it?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-In that particular area what the attempt in B is a definition of interest and its taken
from state statute which the State Law and the general municipal law is very similar in that definition I will
not say it is exact because I cannot remember but I know it is very close, and really what it is saying there
is that an officer is deemed, or an employee is deemed to have an interest in the contacts of his spouse or
children so if a spouse or child had a contact with the Town of Queensbury then the employee would have
it.
MR. GILBERT -Stop right there I understand that but then it says except the contact of employment with
the Town of Queensbury...
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The purpose of that is to exempt contracts of employment, so in otherwords if a
child or spouse had a contract of employment with the Town of Queensbury the officer or employee would
not have a conflict of interest that is under State Law
MR. GILBERT -that is the type of thing that hangs me up. But in general I support it. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other questions or comments?
TOWN CLERK-Mike I have a letter that was just given to me and one other?
First letter
Dear Supervisor Brandt and Members of the Town Board.
I am writing to express my opposition to the ethics law proposed for the Town of Queensbury. I feel it is
too far reaching in some respects while at the same time not addressing certain areas in which potential
ethical conflicts exist.
The Town of Queensbury would be overstepping reasonable expectations to require financial disclosure of
volunteers serving on Town boards or committees. As the spouse of a member of the Zoning Board of
Appeals, it appalls me to think that my personal income and other financial information would be
accessible under this provision of the proposed law; I do not serve the Town government at all, yet I would
be subject to this requirement.
If there is an individual question of impropriety involving money and a member of a Town board or
committee, there are voluntary and/or legal channels through which the Town might access that individual's
financial records.
I also object to the financial disclosure provision because it implies that money is the only leverage used to
ply improper or nonobjective action on the part of our elected, employed or volunteer Town
representatives. The proposed law does not require full disclosure of nonfinancial favors, sexual and other
personal relationships or power issues, any of which certainly might influence Town board or committee
members to vote non-objectively.
I also feel the restriction prohibiting board and committee volunteers from appearing before any Town
board during their tenure is too limiting. While objectivity might be in question were the volunteer to
appear before his/her own board, I would hope we could trust the integrity of our board and committee
members enough to allow volunteers to appear before any but their own board. I also believe it is seriously
overstepping for the Town government to give itself the right to prohibit all members of a company or firm
from appearing before any Town board if the/an owner of the company or firm serves on a Town board.
The result of such a prohibition in a community the size of Queensbury would be a serious shortage of
qualified candidates willing to sere the Town in these volunteer capacities.
The proposed ethics law a it now stands fails to ensure ethical behavior while at the same time being so
restrictive that it will severely limit those who would consider serving the Town and who would otherwise
serve it well. I urge the Town Board to reject the ethics law and put the Town's energy into enforcing New
York State's existing ethics law as well as Queensbury's own existing ethics law. Questions of impropriety
within our Town government should be reviewed on an individual basis and the appropriate disciplinary
action determined on an individual basis.
In addition to urging your refusal of the proposed ethics law, I would ask that the matter be tabled tonight.
Because of the time that has gone into developing the proposed law and the controversy surrounding it, it
seems only fair to bring it before the full Town Board for vote. I understand that Betty Monahan will not
be present tonight. I hope you will hold off voting on the matter until she returns and the town's residents
are fully represented on this issue.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Sincerely,
Isl
Judith M. Carr
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Could I just interrupt the reading of the letters just for one item because I think it is
very important, the letter indicated I think, if I understood it right that the law prohibited members of firms
from practicing before the boards while a member of that firm was on the one of the board and my reading
of this local law and I believe the boards intent was not to do that. I think as I understand it the individual
employee or board member is restricted and cannot appear before any board that is true however if in using
lawyers is probably the best example if a person was on a board and he was a lawyer in the firm, the firm
would not be prohibited from appearing before any of the boards. In the ethics law itself addresses the
individual not the firm they are associated with as a whole and in one specific place where it dealt with a
one year restriction when you left town government it specifically says that the name, the appearance on a
letter head or whatever shall not constitute an appearance it was a clarification that even during that one
year period that person would not be restricted so. I just wanted to address that because I think that is a
fairly important point and I do not see that in this law if somebody else does maybe we ought to take
another look at it.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Actually we changed that section due to the input of Bruce Carr at the public
hearing. That is my recollection.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I do not know who's input it was but I remember we had some other language
dealing with membership that was taken out entirely.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Bruce, come up to the microphone if you want to comment on that please.
BRUCE CARR-I think I brought this up during my comments as well, under section 14.5 g...as I read that
clause it says it is unethical for town official to receive or enter into an agreement expressed or implied, for
services to be rendered for a third party in relation to anything appearing before the town, an owner or a 5%
partner in a professional corporation or however you want to look at it is deemed to have an interest in all
those contracts so to me this section should I be a partner in the law firm for which I work now would
prohibit that law firm from appearing before any board or agency of the town which may include the court
system otherwise I would be in violation of the ethics law because I have an interest in the contract,
deemed to have an interest.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Maybe that is where I see it a little differently and maybe I can explain to you why I
see it differently. The prohibition is 14.5 that no official or employee shall and g. says receive or enter into
any agreement, the word interest is never used. The only place that interest, the only place where a firm is
described to have a or that firm and individual interplay to come in is where the word interest is used as
defined. So, here is really only addressing that person or employee who cannot have an agreement. Now, I
understand of course that something in partnerships and things of that nature that there maybe general
sharing of profits and losses. What this section would require though is that if there was an individual who
was with a firm they would have to isolate themselves so they did not get any share on the matters that
came before those boards while that person was on the board. ...that maybe another issue but I think I do
not think the firms or partnerships are effected because of the way I read interest agreement and the way it
is structured. It is something that you could logically fall into because you do see that upfront but I do not
read it that way, Bruce.
MR. CARR-Will that be explained to whoever this advisory council, ethics board may become, because I
think it is very clear the other way that it would only be sensible that and interest meaning the agreements
that the firm or company ...
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think a couple of thoughts in that regard is I am sure whatever ethics board comes
into being an ethics council they will certainly study the matter the other thing is I know in the past to at
least a couple of people I have asked me questions I have said it is not a bad idea also that once they do
come into existence to raise these very points to make sure they are cleared up right of front they see it the
same way the town attorney is seeing it and the whole issue could be raised at that point and of course the
town board always carries a legislative function that in the event that there is a real problem they can go
back in and correct it. So, there is a mechanism in this law to provide for opinions from the boards so we
try to cover all these things and you are right somebody could read things differently but hopefully with the
protection that are in there that will be avoided to a large extent and if it isn't there is always the legislative
ability of the town board to correct it and if the employees or people are effected are going to the board
initially with these types of questions all that should be accomplished so that nobody gets hurt in the
process.
LETTER
To my Fellow Town Board Members and the Citizens of Queensbury:
I regret that I cannot be with you tonight, but the Town Board set the public hearing on the proposed Code
of Ethics Law for tonight knowing that I would be out of town.
As I have previously stated, this proposed law does not have my support. In fact, I see this legislation, if
enacted, doing a great deal of harm to the Town of Queensbury. THE POST STAR in its Feb. 27 issue
carried the following story: "Groups representing New York's municipalities urged state legislators to
reform local government ethics law (for counties, cities or towns with populations over 50,000) requiring
the filing of detailed financial disclosure forms.
Edwin Crawford, executive director of the New York State Association of Counties, said the disclosure
mandate is invasive and dose little to ensure ethical behavior in local governments. 'Last year, our counties
suffered over 200 resignations by local volunteers who refused to disclose the most minute details of their
personal finances,' said Crawford." The Town of Queensbury has already had several resignations, with
more reportedly coming. We are asking people not only to divulge their families' personal business, but,
also, their clients'. And, don't forget, these financial records are open to everyone who files a "Freedom of
Information" form. If you look at many of the questions and carefully consider them, you have to wonder
at the relevancy.
I, also, question in the discloser statement section b which wants to know if one is a stockholder in any
corporation, etc., regardless of the number of stocks, and section e which is only concerned with one's
status if the interest is more than 5 per cent.
But my real quarrel with this proposed legislation is the attitude and reasoning behind it. It presumes that
everyone is not ethical and says prove that you are. It says you don't have the moral fiber to judge yourself
and to disqualify yourself. It, also, says that mostly you only break the code of ethics when certain legal
relationships and money are involved. What a bunch of malarkey that is!! Some of the dictionary
definitions of ethics are (a) the rules or standards governing the conduct of members of a profession, (b)
any set of moral principles or values, (c) the moral quality of a course of action.
My second main quarrel with this proposed 20 page legislation is that it is so involved, so convoluted, that
even town board members had to consult the town attorney for a opinion as to whether certain instances
would be considered a conflict.
It is my considered opinion that this town board has spent innumerable hours of its time, of the professional
staff, of the legal department and of the public to fix a wheel that isn't broken. If anyone disagrees with this
statement, then let them name names, dates and specific incidents, rather than dealing in innuendoes. In the
ten years that I have been on the town board, has the town board had to resolve a perceived conflict of
interest? About four or five times.
Have there been times when a fellow board member on one of the volunteer boards or a member of the
audience has questioned a board member on a conflict of interest. A few, and they were resolved.
Frankly, I feel that, as town board members, we would have served you, our constituents, far better if we
had taken the time and money spent on this proposed legislation and used it on far more pressing matters.
It is my fervent hope that my fellow town board members will see the lack in this legislation, the overkill,
the harm to the moral of our employees and our volunteers and address this matter in a much more
sensitive, thoughtful way. Please read section 14.1 "PURPOSE" of this proposed legislation. Does this
proposed legislation fulfill this purpose? Legislation does not make "credibility and quality of
government". Credible and quality people do!!
Isl
Betty C. Monahan
Councilman - Ward 1
Tn of Queensbury
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I have a statement regarding the ethics law, my feelings in regard to the need
for some type of ethics legislation should be well known. To repeat, I am vitally concerned that our
governments at any level regain the confidence of the electorate. An ethics law properly written helps to do
that in my judgement, as I have said it sets a tone. This piece of legislation in front of us however may do
more to destroy than to build or heal. I would be satisfied for the present if only the purpose of this law
were promulgated and that has been read before. On top of that I truly believe in the concept of an
independent ethics council and ethics advisory board. Our town as with most has had I am sure truly
unethical or extra ethical conduct in the past. Properly schooled independent councils and boards might
well have handled the matters with dispatch and to the benefit of the citizenry. There is an even larger
matter here that is full of irony, you Mike have made a bit of a career of being somewhat anti-law a
libetarian if you will. You have on occasion advocated defiance of laws which you felt were in the way of
a citizens right a the moment. Indeed well
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Can you give me an example of that?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I am going to finish
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-If you are going to make accusations
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I am going to finish my
SUPERVISOR BRANDT- about me by God
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I am going to finish my statement.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT- I want to hear the details. Your personally attacking me
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-When I am finished I will tell you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT- here and I want the details.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-When I am finished I will tell you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Put them on the record
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Indeed well intentioned
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Right now, or else that's, I personally find that an affront
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I have the floor I believe
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You don't ...look as I got the God danm gavel so if you have got something to
say about me you say it right here and now.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You haven't on occasions for the good of the moment defied laws?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Put it on the table, are you asking me for confessional?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No I am not asking
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You are not my priest and I am not a catholic so go to hell.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I am not asking for a confessional that's...1 will finish my statement if you
will. Indeed well intentioned though it may have been, you council defiance of proper rulings of our
zoning board of appeals on a recent matter I do not get often get caught quoting our beloved Governor but
on Friday night he said when questioned regarding the current Indian tax problems, that quote waiving of
laws for the short term good only hurts all of us in the long run un-quote. I believe he is right on this.
What are we to believe, in our head long rush to push this law have we finally found a law that we can all
abide by no matter what? Or will we help pass this law and indeed help author it and then if it gets in our
way or someone elses defy it. The group ofMr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz and Mr. Brandt what to put this law on
the books with up most speed and with little thought. I ask them now to think about why we wanted this
law in the first place, I ask them to think about the consequences to the citizenry of a bad law I ask them to
step back do a little more work and get it right for all of us.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Got it in. Yes, Sir
DANIEL GEALT-Dan Gealt, Haviland Road, Queensbury-Regarding a number of the comments that have
been made here tonight, specifically Mr. Caimano's comments promulgating a purpose without mechanism
is an exercise in philosophy and it...wonderful but it does not resolve any problems the idea that a group of
people is trying to rush through an ethics law addresses some of the things Mr. Parker brought up. He
talked specifically to Mr. Tucker about issues that had been brought up names and unethical things in my
estimation Mr. Tucker has been coming to Town Board meetings and addressing things that he found
unethical for at least a dozen, maybe fifteen years that I know of and it turns out that his mechanism by
which he is resolving the ethical problems that he has seen in government continue to attend meetings and
finally get himself elected to the Town Board and enacts an ethics law, that has been his way to resolve the
problem. Regarding whether or not the law paints too broad a brush or whether it does not address enough
of the activities that may possibly be a problem ethically, I believe 14.5 fwhich on my copy is on page 4
pretty well covers anything that could be construe to be a conflict of interest an unethical behavior in the
way that it might relate to the interest of the people of the Town of Queensbury. Whether, it is possible that
an occasional individual finds that they have some business difficulties because of the law like this where
they find that because of the business interest it is really impossible for them to also serve the people of the
Town without a conflict. I guess for the rest of the people in the Town we have to say, that is too bad, we
have to forego their input if it can be done in an ethical manner, it cannot be done by a conflict of interest.
This issue of ethics legislation its something that has been necessary for a long time, I do not specifically
find any need to point fingers at any unethical specifics its not necessary there is nothing in this law that I
can see that says that only financial misconduct is involved or only nonfinancial misconduct, virtually
anything that results in actual conflict of interest or unethical results to people of the Town of Queensbury
and is brought to the ethics board under this law. I did not come here with any prepared remarks I read the
law since I've been here, I just cannot see any reason to refrain from passing it, .. .representation with the
rest of the Town of Queensbury if it turns out that the vote here tonight is three to one than I am sorry that
Mrs. Monahan could not be here but, it would not have made any difference in the vote, if the vote turns
out to be two to two then she will have her chance. So, I guess I do not have much in further comments but
I would like to see the law passed and I commend the people on the Town Board who are working for that.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other comments?
MR. BOB FULLER-My name is Bob Fuller, I live in Queensbury. No where, I would like to commend all
of you really for this law and I know Mike if you go back almost a year we have been talking about an
ethics law and I think you come with a mandate to pass it, but no where do I see in this law anyplace where
we are going to destroy our sense of volunteer ism our commitment to our Town
and responsibility and the obligation that we feel, I think that in hearing some of the concerns it might be
and this is just almost a flippant remark that volunteerism that we have is somehow self serving and I do
not believe that, I do believe that a number of people who are willing to step forward to fill any void that
may exist because of this law and get on with the business of our town in an honest and just way. I also
would like to say that no where do I see anything that says that we will have no common sense whatever in
our approach and I think that is good. I support this law and I support what you are doing here.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other comments?
MR. DICK PALMER-My name is Dick Palmer I live ...Queensbury. I have spent a lot of my life in sales
and working in various communities in the whole of New York State, Long Island, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and I got into many communities that I wish that they had, had a law like this. I admit at
times I made a sale that could have gone through but was all due to money and who had the money and
who was paying who and I think a law like this prevents this type of thing from happening in the future and
I do not think it points a finger at anybody, I think it says this is a good way so in the future we will have
good laws in Queensbury and we will not have conflicts and I think that ...1 do not think that it has been
rushed through it seems to me that it has been worked on for...January...1 really feel that this is ... Thank
you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Any other comments on this proposed legislation? Closed the public hearing,
thank you for your comments. With that I propose that we adopt the law and certainly we have talked
about it in the campaign we talked about it from the first day we met with this board and for six months and
twenty days we have talked about it we have heard citizen input on many occasions we have re-drafted the
law according to that input and who knows in the end the law we have proposed may have some
imperfections and maybe something may have to be done for clarification or for adding more to the law but
that can always be done. Until we start with the law we have nothing so I am going to propose the
inactrnent of that law and I believe there is a resolution proposed, that was prepared for that and I would
like to offer that resolution.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-I would like to second that please.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-We all have that resolution in front of us and I think it is clear is there discussion
on that resolution?
Take a vote please.
RESOLUTION TO ENACT LOCAL LAW NO. 8, 1992
A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
BY DELETING AND REPEALING CHAPTER 14 THEREOF, ETHICS, CODE OF,
AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 14, TO BE ENTITLED
"ETHICS AND DISCLOSURE LAW", WHICH CHAPTER PROVIDES FOR A
REVISED CODE OF ETHICS, DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS,
ETHICS ADVISORY COUNCIL, ETHICS BOARD, AND
PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 388, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury held a public hearing on April 6, 1992
on a proposed Local Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by deleting and repealing Chapter
14 thereof, Ethics, Code of, and replacing it with a new Chapter 14, to be entitled "Ethics and Disclosure
Law", and
WHEREAS, following the aforesaid public hearing, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury
directed that the Local Law be substantially revised, and
WHEREAS, following the aforesaid revision to said Local Law, the Town Board adopted a
Resolution Setting a Public Hearing on said revised proposed Local Law, entitled "Ethics and Disclosure
Law", and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 1992, the aforesaid public hearing was duly conducted with regard to the
proposed Local Law, and
WHEREAS, following said public hearing it was determined by the Town Board that some further
revisions should be made to the Local Law before adoption, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid Local Law, as revised, was presented to the Town Board at least seven
(7) days prior to the date of this meeting whereat this Resolution was being considered, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board has conducted a public hearing on the same date with respect to the
proposed Local Law,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby enacts the proposed Local
Law to amend the Code of the Town of Queensbury by adding a New Chapter 14, to be entitled "Ethics and
Disclosure Law", which chapter provides for a revised Code of Ethics, Disclosure Statements, Ethics
Advisory Council, Ethics Board, and penalties for non-compliance, to be known as Local Law No.8, 1992,
the same to be entitled and contain such provisions as are set forth in the copy of the proposed Local Law
presented to the Town Board members at least seven (7) days prior to this meeting and also presented again
on the evening of this meeting, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby directed to file the said
Local Law with the New York State Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal
Home Rule Law and any other State Agencies, if necessary, under Law, and that said Local Law will take
effect immediately and as soon as allowable under the Law.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES : Mr. Caimano
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
MR. PARKER-When will this be in effect?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Upon the filing with the Secretary of State.
MR. PARKER-Who would a citizen see if he had a concern...
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Suggested that we do an education session for anybody that was interested
especially attorneys on how we see this law and what we did and how we see it work...mean while we have
to get an ethics board and all those things together...1 think it is important that we have a seminar on it and
make it available to anybody...
MR. PARKER-When do you expect the appropriate boards would be in effect, that an action could be
taken?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It is up to the Board as soon as they can do it.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-We would like to get Betty back here, I am sure she will have input on who she
would like on it.
MR. MONTESI-The addition of the lawyers working for the Town you have made mention that would be
an appropriate amendment at this point you have a Town Attorney and we do have on occasion your board
sitting would contract with other attorneys to represent the town in various matters that the Town Attorney
wouldn't do you think it is appropriate that we expediently include in this law that amendment to include
attorneys not as Mr. Carr pointed out not as a blanket an officer of the court but very specifically the town
attorney was sort of excluded? The other question is will the members that that are appointed to the ethics
board itself also to be filing a disclosure?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think the addressing the first item, Mr. Carr has brought up a point tonight in terms
of attorneys not being included as I mentioned to the Board that was not the intent certainly when I drafted
it I know that was not your intent this has come to me a little bit as a surprise tonight, I am not prepared at
this point that the law does not include attorneys however, as you know my advice would be as usual that if
there is an ambiguity in that regard then we ought to clear it so it is understood. In the mean time however,
let me assure this board as well as the public that as the town attorney for this town I would consider myself
bound by this code of ethics and I will say that on the record now, I intend to fill out the disclosure form
due whatever is required of me under this disclosure statements and I will comply with it however, as I
mentioned if in fact it is ambiguous and it should be corrected to be sure that the attorneys are in fact
included if that is the intent of the board. With regard to the second question, they are all required to fill
disclosure statements out and I believe and if my recollection serves me correct there is a section of the law
that basically requires the flipping around of the two services of the board to take care of that disclosures
statements and any complaints you may have against them.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Would you address that question then and get back to us if we need to clarify the
law as far as attorneys because clearly we said attorneys would be covered except the court.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 389,92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
RESOLVED, that the Town Board minutes of May 18,19,20,21,26,28 and June 1,10,11, July 2,6,9, 13,and
16 be and hereby are approved.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT:Mrs. Monahan
ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano-July 9th Mr. Tucker-June 10th
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 390, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and
the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget:
PLANNING:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
001-8020-4090 001-8020-2010 $ 2,000.00
(Conference Expense) (Office Equipment)
BUILDING & GROUNDS:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
001-1620-4050 001-1620-4080 $ 500.00
(Books & Publications (Advertisement)
- Subscriptions)
TOWN CLERK:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
001-1410-4400 001-1410-4060 $ 482.00
(Misc. Contractual) (Service Contracts
& Warranties)
ATTORNEY:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
001-1420-1895
(Secretary)
001-1420-4400
(Misc. Contractual)
$11,756.18
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE
OF ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR COLLECTION AND DELIVERY OF
COMPACTED SOLID WASTE FROM TWO TRANSFER STATIONS TO
ADIRONDACK RESOURCE RECOVERY
AND RIDGE ROAD LANDFILL, IF NECESSARY
RESOLUTION NO.: 391, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is considering the action of adopting a
resolution authorizing the advertisement of bids for the collection and delivery of compacted solid waste
from two transfer stations to the Adirondack Resource Recovery, and under certain circumstances, to the
Town of Queensbury Landfill located on Ridge Road, and solid waste from the Luzerne Road Transfer
Station to the Ridge Road Landfill under circumstances specified in the contract, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is duly qualified to act as lead agency
with respect to compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) which requires
environmental review of certain actions undertaken by local governments, and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is an unlisted action pursuant to the rules and regulations of
SEQRA,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, after considering the action
proposed herein, reviewing the Short Environmental Assessment Form, reviewing the criteria contained in
Section 617.11, and thoroughly analyzing the said action with respect to potential environmental concerns,
determines that the action will not have a significant effect on the environment, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to complete and execute
Part III of the said Short Environmental Assessment Form and to check the box thereon indicating that the
proposed action will not result in any significant adverse impacts, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 617.15, the annexed Negative Declaration is hereby
approved and the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to file the same in accordance with
the provisions of the general regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT OF BIDS FOR
COLLECTION AND DELIVERY OF COMPACTED SOLID WASTE
FROM TWO TRANSFER STATIONS TO ADIRONDACK RESOURCE RECOVERY
RESOLUTION NO. 392, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz WHO MOVED FOR ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Pliney Tucker
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of receiving Bids for the
furnishing of all labor, material and equipment necessary for the collection of solid waste that will be
compacted at the Town of Queensbury/City of Glens Falls Transfer Stations located off Ridge and Luzerne
Roads in the Town of Queensbury and transferring or delivering said solid waste to the Adirondack
Resource Recovery located at River Street, Hudson Falls, New York, or in certain instances, to the Town of
Queensbury Landfill located off Ridge Road, and collecting, transferring, or delivering non-compacted
solid waste from the Luzerne Road Transfer Station to the Ridge Road Landfill, under circumstances
specified in the contract, for which services are more specifically identified in the proposed Bid Documents
submitted to this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that an advertisement for bids for the said collection and delivery of solid waste, be
published in the official newspaper for the Town of Queensbury and that such advertisement indicate that
bids will be received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury at any time until, but not
later than August 17th, 1992, at 2:00 p.m., and that the bids will be publicly opened and read at 2:05 p.m.
by the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, and such advertisement shall indicate that the Town Board
of the Town of Queensbury shall have the right, at its discretion, to reject all bids and re-advertise for new
bids as provided by the laws of the State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized to open all
bids received at the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury, at 2:05 p.m., August 17, 1992,
read the same aloud and make record of the same as is customarily done, and present the bids to the next
regular or special meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION TO AMEND 1992 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 393, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
WHEREAS, certain departments have requested transfers of funds for the 1992 Budget, and
WHEREAS, said requests have been approved by the Town of Queensbury Accounting Office and
the Chief Fiscal Officer,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the funds be transferred as follows, for the 1992 budget:
ACCOUNTING:
FROM:
TO:
AMOUNT:
001-1990-4400
(Contingency)
001-1680-2032
(Data Processing)
$ 700.00
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT:Mrs. Monahan
RESOLUTION AMENDING 1992 BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.: 394, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the Superintendent of Pine View CemeterylCrematorium, and the Cemetery
Commission, have advised that there is no longer a need for Fund #95 (Retort Capital Project), and
WHEREAS, the Director of Accounting Services and the Chief Fiscal Officer have recommended
and approved of budget amendments needed to pay the outstanding interfund loan of $1,100.00 plus
interest, and to close the Retort Project Fund (#95),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves, authorize, and
directs that the 1992 Budget be amended as follows:
1) Increase appropriations in Cemetery Fund Account #002-9950-9095 (Transfer to Retort
Project) in the amount of$I,500.00;
2) Increase Estimated Revenues in Cemetery Fund Account #002-0002-2193 (Crematory
Services) in the amount of $1,500.00.
and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that after completion of the foregoing transfers, the Retort Project Fund (#95) be
closed at the discretion of the Chief Fiscal Officer.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
Discussion held-Resolution concerning the Development of Insurance Specifications for the Town's request
for proposals...
Supervisor Brandt-This is basically a resolution where we would be authorizing us to go out to an insurance
consultant to put together a bid package to rebid all of the towns insurance. For awhile there were people
in this business and then they seemed to vanish and suddenly there are a couple of them that showed up
again and sent or notified the town that they were in this business and this would authorize us to move in
that direction, it is a long slow process but it would in effect enable us to go back out to bid for our
insurance package. Councilman Caimano-As slow as it maybe I, since we have Betty Monahan working
on this project I would suggest that we hold this until she gets back for her input, I do not know what that
input might be but she is not here and she has been working on it for several months, it seems to me to be
the right thing to do. Supervisor Brandt-We could move with the resolution and let her give her input, all
we are doing we are not specifying who we are sending this to it would go to whoever is in the business.
Councilman Tucker-The conversations I have had with Betty, she was headed in this direction, I know that.
Supervisor Brandt-She was trying to do this but at the time there was nobody, the people that were in the
business that we had dealt with before had left the field and it is only recently that we got notification that
there are people in the field again. Councilman Goetz-Nick, when you went to the Association of Towns
you had that name of the person.
Councilman Caimano-It is a group and I gave that to Betty. Councilman Goetz-What was that,
municipalities got together and Councilman Caimano-It was forming a corporation of municipalities to, I
hate to use the word selfinsured because it is not really self insurance fund but it is similar to that only you
are a corporation. Councilman Goetz-Do you know if she did anything on it? Councilman Caimano- Yes,
and at last I heard, two days ago, was that she would hope that we would wait on this. Councilman Goetz-I
think that we should wait for her input. Councilman Tucker-I understand, if I read it right, that the
selfinsured did not get through the legislature. Councilman Caimano-No, there are several towns that are
doing it. Councilman Tucker-Yes, but a law has to be passed by the legislature and it did not make it this
last go around, I understand. Supervisor Brandt-Well, lets sit on that.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PREPARATION OF PRELIMINARY PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, AND SUCH MAPS & REPORTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY
FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF SEWER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT AREA OF THE
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY LOCATED IN THE GENERAL VICINITY OF
COUNTY LINE ROAD
RESOLUTION NO.: 395,92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of authorizing the
preparation of preliminary plans, specifications, and such maps & reports as may be necessary for the
consideration of sewer improvements for that area of the Town of
Queensbury located in the general vicinity of County Line Road, and
WHEREAS, Rist-Frost Associates, P. c., have indicated the cost of engineering services for such
preliminary plans, specifications, maps & reports, should not exceed $ 3,200.00, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury has been advised by the Queensbury
Economic Development Corporation that in furtherance of its desire to encourage business in the area, that
it would pay for such preliminary plans, specifications, maps & reports,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes the preparation
of such preliminary plans, specifications, maps & reports, as may be necessary for the consideration of
sewer improvements for that area of the Town of
Queensbury located in the general vicinity of County Line Road, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the cost of said preliminary plans, specifications, maps & reports shall be paid
for from Account No. 001-1440-4403, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that this expenditure is being made, however, with the understanding that the
Queensbury Economic Development Corporation will reimburse the Town for the expenditures so incurred,
and such reimbursement shall be placed into the appropriate Revenue Account.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES : Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
Supervisor Brandt -QEDC has agreed to fund this package and it is in the amount of $3,200.
RESOLUTION TO SET PUBLIC HEARING AND TO DESIGNATE THE TOWN AS
LEAD AGENCY REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CODE
OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY, CHAPTER 179 THEREOF ENTITLED
"ZONING"
RESOLUTION NO. 396, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of amending, supplementing,
changing and/or modifying the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, the same having been previously
codified and made a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury as Chapter 179 thereof entitled "Zoning,"
and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to the said Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179
thereof entitled "Zoning" is in the form of a Local Law and is presented to this meeting of the said Town
Board with this resolution and is incorporated herein, as if more fully set forth herein, for all purposes, and
WHEREAS, a completed Part I of a Long Environmental Assessment Form has also been
presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury may, from time to time, pursuant to
Section 265 of the Town Law and the relevant sections of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of
New York, amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Zoning Ordinance as codified by Ordinance
of Local Law, and
WHEREAS, in order to so amend, supplement, change, modify or repeal the Ordinance as
codified, it is necessary to hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed amendment, and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to provide notice to other governmental bodies or agencies as
required by law, and
WHEREAS, it is also necessary to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act in
connection with conducting an environmental review of the proposed action which consists of adopting the
proposed amendment, and
WHEREAS, it would appear that the action about to be undertaken by the Town Board of the
Town of Queensbury is an unlisted action under the provisions of and regulations adopted pursuant to said
State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates that it desires to
conduct a coordinated review and be the lead agency in connection with any reviews necessary pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and directs that such notices be sent by the Zoning
Administrator to such other involved agencies as may be required under SEQRA to notify the agencies of
this action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent in a coordinated review and that a lead agency
must be agreed to within 30 days, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing on
August 24th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m. in the Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren
County, New York, at which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard,
upon and in reference to the proposed amendment, supplement, change and/or modification to the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179,
thereof entitled "Zoning," and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and directed
to give 10 days notice of said public hearing by publishing a notice in a form to be approved by the Town
Attorney, for purposes of publication in an official newspaper of the Town and by posting on the Town
bulletin Board outside the Clerk's Office said notice, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give written
notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Queensbury as codified and a
part of the Code of the Town of Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the
Environmental Assessment Form, a copy of this resolution and a copy of the written notice previously
described 10 days prior to the public hearing to the following: Warren County, by service upon the Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors, and such other communities or agencies that it is necessary to give written
notice to pursuant to Section 264 of the Town Law and Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New
York, the Code of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of
said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as codified and a part of the Code of the Town of
Queensbury, Chapter 179, thereof entitled "Zoning," a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form, the
Notice of Public Hearing and a copy of this resolution to the Warren County Planning Agency and the
Town of Queensbury Planning Board for their review in accordance with the laws of the State of New York
and Code of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER,
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator is also hereby directed to send a copy of the proposed
amendment, Notice of Public Hearing, a copy of the Environmental Assessment Form and a copy of this
resolution to the Adirondack Park Agency.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mr. Brandt
NOES None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
Discussion held before vote: Attorney Dusek-reviewed the proposed local law-proposal to revise the zoning
ordinance for the Town of Queensbury...the goal to exempt from the ordinance certain site plan review was
being required for accessory uses, Mr. Parisi gave me some initial language on Friday today we worked on
it to review the language, in five zones, Plaza Commercial, Highway Commercial, Neighborhood
Commercial Industrial- Light and Heavy
Zones similar language is being proposed in each instances that says permitted uses will be type II uses
then the words and accessory uses...then we added additional language that said all your uses in the site
shall require site plan review except that allowed accessory uses shall not require site plan review. Page 2
Accessory Uses in each instances has been modified to indicate that allowed accessory uses are customary
accessory uses incidental to the permitted use or and existing non-conforming residential use...what this
language is attempting to do is broaden the types of accessory uses you can have... second, it is also
relieving any site plan review of these uses ..third, if you have any non conforming residences in some of
these zones it takes away the need for those residences to come for site plan review or zoning variance for
things like swimming pools, storage sheds...it also means all these uses would still have to comply with the
general ordinance requirements if they did not then the person would have to come before the zoning board
for a variance...they would never have to come for site plan review even if they went for a variance...
Councilman Goetz-Questioned new residences in a light industrial zone? Attorney Dusek-New residences
would have to come in for a use variance...noted changes to be made...page 2 Under Accessory Uses it say
Customary use and it should say and accessory use structure that should appear in every single section
thorough the law...Page 1 where it says except that allowed accessory uses, take out the
comma...Discussion held regarding having residences in industrial zones.. Supervisor Brandt-recommended
more buffer zones between residential and industrial areas...Councilman Goetz-we need the input from the
Zoning Board of Appeals...
Attorney Dusek-Requested a correction on page 3 of the resolution ...remove the words "and substantially
in conformance with the Notice presented at this meeting"...agreed to by the Town Board...
Discussion held regarding Yaffee Appraisal-Billing over the $500.00 quote...Councilman Tucker-How
many bids did you receive regarding this appraisal? Attorney Dusek-At least 3-4 Councilman Tucker-I
believe when he reached the $500.00 if it was me I would have stopped. Supervisor Brandt-When you win
a bid, you perform if you do not make any money that is the way it is....Councilman requested to see the
other bids...
Discussion held regarding Demolition site on the Hudson River... Councilman Tucker-I have not seen it
written but I have been notified ENCON was notified that the Town did not have any jurisdiction over this
landfill. Attorney Dusek-There is a law in our code which does provide for a permitting process...1
recommend that the individual be notified that the Town of Queensbury has a permitting process as well
and he has to comply with that together with what ENCON maybe requiring. Councilman Tucker-
Requested that the Town Attorney notify the individual of the towns regulations, registered letter and I
would like a copy of anything you forward to him... to be sent to Jeff Threw...
Councilman Tucker-I want him to know that the Town has jurisdiction. Question was raised regarding the
McLaughlin
landfill...
Discussion regarding utilities consultant...
Attorney Dusek-Noted that the members of the Town Board were going to review the documentation on
the consultants and decide which one was to be recommended to the Town Board for consideration...noted
he had reviewed Mr. Laake's contract but had not received the other consultants contract...spoke to the
Board re: Mr. Laake's contract... 1. there is a duration of payments for three years in the
agreement...Attorney suggested it ends as of December 31st 1993...he indicated that if that is the case he
indicated a higher percentage of the refund should be his... Supervisor Brandt-Tell him we have a bidder
that is coming in at a lower price and if he wants to continue the discussion we will ask for more discussion
with the other party if he wants to get on with it, lets get on with it... Councilman Goetz-requested that the
Board have a copy of the contract from the other consultant...it was agreed to contact the other bidder for
her contract...
OPEN FORUM
Mr. John Salvadore-Spoke on the Warren County Sewer Project...
Supervisor Brandt-Noted that an informational meeting was held...they may abandon their efforts to enter
private lands in Queensbury ...
Councilman Tucker-Noted that this is a County project...
Supervisor Brandt-requested that Mr. Salvadore place in writing his questions regarding the Warren Co.
Sewer Project...
Mr. John Salvadore-Questioned the abandon road across our property...
Attorney Dusek-We have reached a solution and as I understand it everybody should be able to live with
everybody up there for a little while until we can get to the bottom of it..
Mr. Salvadore-The solution you worked out is with two other neighbors and does not involve us at alL.. we
have a section of town road abandoned across our property we want an official abandonment...
Supervisor Brandt-We understand it but we want to know our legal base before we make a decision.
Attorney Dusek-This is a problem that came up for serious review back in the 1960's. At that time County
Attorney Beswick recommended a declaratory judgement action, I am trying to see if I can come up with a
solution other than court litigation solution...
OPEN FORM CLOSED
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 397,92
INTRODUCED BY: Mr. Nick Caimano WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mrs. Susan Goetz
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby approves the Audit of Bills as appears on abstract dated July 20,
1992 and numbered 9229270 -
9231570 and totaling $595,516.41.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
ABSTAIN: Mr. Caimano on 00127 vendor number
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 398, 92
INTRODUCED BY: Mrs. Goetz, WHO MOVED ITS ADOPTION
SECONDED BY: Mr. Michel Brandt
RESOLVED, that the Town Board hereby moves into Executive Session to discuss collective bargaining
and litigations.
Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 1992 by the following vote:
All those in Favor: AYES
All those opposed: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Monahan
On motion the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Miss Darleen Dougher
Town Clerk-Queensbury