1992-04-06
REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
APRIL 6, 1992
7:00 P.M.
MTG.#35
RES. 206-215
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHEL BRANDT -SUPERVISOR
BETTY MONAHAN-COUNCILMAN
SUSAN GOETZ-COUNCILMAN
NICK CAIMANO-COUNCILMAN
PLINEY TUCKER-COUNCILMAN
TOWN ATTORNEY
PAUL DUSEK
TOWN OFFICIALS
KATHLEEN KATHE, TOM FLAHERTY, RALPH VANDUSEN, MIKE SHAW, JIM COUGHLIN,
BETTY EGGLESTON, PETE CARTIER, TED TURNER, PAT CRAYFORD, LEE YORK, BRUCE
CARR, JACK BALFOUR
PRESS: WENU,
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COUNCILMAN GOETZ
SUPERVISOR BRANDT opened meeting ... recently a delegation from the City of Saga City in Japan with
the students came to the Town Hall along with the Vice Mayor of Saga City, and we had the opportunity to
show them about the Town Office Building and the peculiarities of our system of government as compared
to theirs. The Vice Mayor on behalf of Saga City presented the Town of Queensbury with three gifts.
Supervisor opened the gifts ... Chop Sticks, a Fan and a Happy Coat ... that we'll share with the public and
put on display.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED LOCAL LAW, CODE OF ETHICS
NOTICE SHOWN
7:05
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Our first order of business, the public hearing on a proposed law. It's pretty
detailed law and I'm going open the public hearing. I ask that anybody who wants to comment, please
come up, sit down, try and be comfortable. Don't be shy, tell us whatever you think about any part of it that
you'd like to discuss or ask us questions or give us input. But for the public record, just give us your name
so it's part of the official record. Thank you. The floor is open, it's yours.
PETE CARTIER-I'm glad you opened those gifts before the ethic's law went into effect. I refer to page 4,
item E and I guess I have a question. It says at this list, prohibitions, prohibited activities after the
termination of service or employment with the Town of Queensbury, you are prohibited from appearing
before any board or agency of the Town of Queensbury in relation to any case, proceeding or application in
which he or she personally participated during the period of his or her service of employment. Do I infer
from this that once a person leaves a board whether it be Town Board, Planning Board or Zoning Board
they may from that point on, as a private citizen, not appear before a board to discuss an item that appeared
before that board when that person served? Is that my understanding?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's what I would read. Paul, do you want to comment on that?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The first comment I would have, is that I don't think that was the intent. I think the
intent was in terms of preventing somebody from appearing or participating in a representative type of
capacity on a matter that they worked in. The easiest example obviously because it involves me too I
guess, is a lawyer. If I represent the Town of Queensbury in a case, the idea was, is not to prevent, you
know, was to prevent me from obviously working on the other side of that case. They wouldn't have had to
do it this way because my own legal ethics would have stopped me but this will stop everybody from doing
that type of activity. You're right though in terms of that, we probably could add a clarification to make
sure that, that interpretation that you're suggesting, does not get into the law. I don't think that was the
intent of the Town Board.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. My only other question is, item F and I read this thing about 10 times.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I did too.
MR. CARTIER-There appears to be, from the way I read it, there appears to be a contradiction there
between the first and second section.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Between E and F?
MR. CARTIER-No, between the first part ofF and the second part ofF and again, that maybe just a matter
of language clarification.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know what you are seeing in terms of a contradiction Pete.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, the first section says, you may not appear after, for a period following one year.
Correct?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct.
MR. CARTIER-Then it says, going down to the middle of the middle line, except that this provision shall
not prohibit and I see a, I'm seeing a contradiction there. Again, maybe I'm missing something.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Okay, the exception there is, it excepts and almost it wasn't even necessary probably
to put it in, but it was put in just so that there was no misunderstanding and that is that if a board, if the
Town Board should call you back and ask you to represent them or another board ask you to do some work
for them that involves obviously appearing before any number of Town Boards, that that's not prohibited.
In other words, you're never prohibited from working for the Town, you're just prohibited from working for
other people who have matters before the Town.
MR. CARTIER-Okay, thank you. Maybe, as a layman who are going to be reading this, maybe that could
be clarified a little bit too. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-In the rewriting of that, I found it pretty awkward too. It seems like there's a
word missing. I'm not sure.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Remember I brought that up the other night because I had a problem with
that.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes. It seems like there's a word missing and I don't, you know, it actually,
Pete is right, it seems to say in the second part, exactly opposite. Now you clarified it by saying that it
didn't prohibit the Planning Board from calling Peter back, for example, and testifying before it. That's
what you meant, right?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Or even hiring back services.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But it doesn't say that. It seems to, at least from our, my standpoint, it seems
to read from the middle of it down, after the word except, it seems to read exactly opposite from what the
first 4 lines, 5 lines read.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think the problem is, it's an extremely long sentence and frequently that's what
happens, when the sentences are too long and there's too many commas, they can be misread. Certainly
and my opinion is that it says what I've just indicated it says but certainly, if it can be criticized, then it
ought to be reworked so that everybody can understand it, no question about it.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-On page 6, under disclosure, that opening paragraph, I find the same kind of
language.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right, me too.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I've read that over and over and over and I think I understand it and I believe it
says, it's correct but again it's so lengthy, there are places I think it might be rewritten to be a little clearer.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well in, this 14.8?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes, 14.8.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-In that one, there's actually an error. The error appears where it says including
secretarial, that should have been also, excluding secretarial.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That one, there is a and I'm not sure if it was a drafting error or a typing error to be
honest, but it certainly needs to be changed or corrected.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I guess we've got to go back and those sentences which are longer than 5,000
words ought to be broken down into some kind of readable form.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, anyone else? Come on right up.
DAVID HARRINGTON-I have one question at the beginning under definitions, page 2. Under the
definition of employee, does employee also mean the dues paying members of the CSEA, union?
Any of this?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think, well wait a minute, as I understand it this law and maybe I better lean on
the Attorney more, I think everybody is, comes under the provision of the ethic's portion, but the disclosure
specifically excludes the union.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is my understanding.
MR. HARRINGTON-What entails for the union members to do under the ethics? Do they have to fill out a
form or sign anything?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -No.
MR. HARRINGTON-Or they just have to live up to it?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's all.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-There is one thing that they would have to sign and that is the, that they have
reviewed the ethic's law and that they will undertake to conform to it. There's that one little part on page 6,
it's the ethics and disclosure law review form, that, they would have to sign.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Half page on page 6, the top of it.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay, right.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-All employees.
MR. HARRINGTON-Okay and there are penalties to go along with this if they do not follow the ethics?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The penalties in this particular law are primarily devoted, in fact they're exclusively
devoted to the disclosure statement for failure to file. There's a 10,000 dollar penalty for misrepresentation
or failure to file. As far as the ethics law itself is concerned, it's my opinion that a violation of the ethics
law, could constitute grounds in and of itself for disciplinary action for any employee which could include
a reprimand, it could include, I don't know that you could really fine yet there maybe some authority but it
certainly could also include removal, suspension or permanent termination. All of your typical types of
review and abilities or authority that they have normally with any employee matter. It would also extend to
a violation of the ethics law.
MR. HARRINGTON-Okay, thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else?
BERNARD RAHILL-I realize that leaks are not only just used with Japanese food and so I think therefore
we should address the question of leaks and if we are doing that, I would suggest that we refer to page 11,
number 1. It says the Ethics Advisory Council will hear or receive complaints of unethical practices
brought by any citizen and will review requests for advisory opinions. Now, will these requests have to be
made public by the individual whose making the statement? This is a legal question I think. Somebody is
liable to say, well this information was leaked, sue.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Is the question that if an employee requests an advisory opinion, do they have to,
will they, is that the question or is it the question as to a complaint? Because there's two things.
MR. RAHILL-No, this is with regard to the complaint.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- The complaint.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The law provides, the ethics advisory council would turn the matter over to the
ethics board and the board itself would then decide, that board would decide whether or not public
disclosure is required and then file with the Town Board. So the law itself does not contemplate the ethics
advisory committee nor does it give the ethics advisory committee any authority to turn or make that
complaint public.
MR. RAHILL-Well I still don't think you've answered my question. The question is with regard to the
person who is making the representation to the advisory council which would be a person who wants to
. .
remam unanImous.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The person filing the complaint.
MR. RAHILL-Therefore it would be a leak.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I don't know that we really thought of that when we drafted it, but that's a good
question. Is the person who's actually filing the complaint with the Advisory Committee will they be
protected in terms of unanimity.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I can't see how you can do that under the constitution of the United States. I
think if your going to accuse somebody of something you stand up, people have a right to face their
accuser. I can't imagine how you can get around that.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I assume your talking about the person who made the complaint.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Who is ever making the complaint has to be ready to stand up and be identified
otherwise for my sake, I wouldn't give them the time of day.
MR. RAHILL-Legally is that the decision of the board?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The decision of the board can be whatever it's wants it to be. But, I think initially
Mike's analysis from a legal perspective doesn't sound to far off the mark. I haven't given it a lot of thought
because it just came up now, but certainly if the board wanted to look into it further that would be the
board's prerogative.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think we certainly can take a stand on that and that's up to the board but, I'll
take mine very quickly.
MR. RAHILL-With regard to that Mr. Brandt, the reason I'm bringing that into public purview is because
whenever your dealing with politically sensitive situations where a person's livelihood and welfare is
involved, you're dealing also with that persons family and future and there are alot of very sensitive matters
involved. So I think that it's something that does have to be analyzed very carefully before making a
decision and these decisions have to be not only legal but very moral. They have to be understood and
you're doing, I really appreciate this, this is a great piece of work that you're doing right now. Never the
less, I still think we have to look at whether an individual would be intimated or prevented from coming
before the board in a way, shape or form. We have to look at that question.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-You know Mike, I think maybe we need to look at this from another angle
and knowing some of the things that have gone on in federal and state, makes me think of this, and
supposing an employee who has a question about something that's going on his department is ethical and
should be going on, while that's being investigated, that employee could be put under a great deal of
harassment, could even be found ways to have to leave their job and maybe alot of things that should be
brought to somebodies attention will not be brought to his attention. So in theory I agree with what you're
saying Mike, but I'm really not sure if that's going to work the way it ought to work when we say that
everybody has to go on the public record when they bring a complaint. Some of this might not be an actual
complaint as it is so much of, I think this is a matter that should be looked into which is a little different
than a complaint, that somebody has a little bit of knowledge but they don't have a whole amount of
knowledge about it and figures that somebody else has got the authority and the ability to find out that
knowledge.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- W ell of course now with this kind of a law on the books, there will be a
vehicle for doing that. Under the current situation, what you say could happen to almost anybody at any
time with no recourse. At least here with something on the books, there is a recourse and even if something
terrible is leaked and brought out and whatever, because of this, it strikes me that the person who is
aggrieved, has now legal recourse, where today, they don't. Am I right or not?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well I think there's legal recourse even today, it's not as easily made possible as it is
under this law. You've got in this law, built two advisory, you know two boards essentially, an advisory
committee and a board. But, I think if I understand the concern though it goes more not so much to the
individual who has been accused in terms of his protection, I guess he has a pretty good, in terms of a
review process, I think it's pretty well established here. I think the concern if I understand correctly is the
person who is making the accusations, is he going to be protected in the system some how.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well there's a couple of things I think are important in this law. One is that the
review board is non politically. In other words, it can't be committeeman, it can't be anyone in the political
process and I think that's very important. That's probably in the end, it's maybe the best thing we have in
the law from my view point, to keep it out of politics. However it don't mean politics can't enter into it.
For instance on page 10, under F, I thought that we ought add, in the second line, submit the same and right
there, insert, unopened to the ethics advisory council and we insert the word, unopened. Then at the end of
that sentence, continue, which shall be, and add the word, sole repository for such statements. I think that
would be stronger language which keeps it, the material private and keeps it to the eyes of the ethics
advisory council. Later on, let's see, on page 11, item 4, there's a long sentence and the next sentence starts
prior to filing of the opinion with the ethics board, and it doesn't say, how long prior. It has to serve notice
if I remember right here, but I think it has to say, the person should be told and it's especially important in
the next section it comes up again, the same language, on page 13, item 3. Here you've got a mechanism
where whatever is being charged will come before a Town Board and will be public knowledge and here
again, it says prior to filing the opinion with the Town Board. Here again, I think if the person has a right
to respond to whatever accusation, they need to know it well in advance and I personally think, I would
suggest that that be 15 days or something like that where they have a chance to read it and be aware of it
and have a chance to respond to it. Otherwise, legally prior you could do it 15 minutes prior and put it on
the public record and smear somebody. So my suggestion in both of those is that we specify how long
prior and I'm suggesting 15 days as a starter if somebody...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Fine.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Going back to what Mr. Rahill mentioned about keeping it confidential, I think
that's something that we should really think seriously about. I've talked to people in Wilton and seen how
this has worked there, and they see this document or this type of document, especially when it comes to the
advisory council, as a very positive tool for everybody concerned. It's not even, try not to think it has
accusing but somebody might just wonder about something in a department and they could go to the
advisory council and ask how they see the situation. It can help the Town Board and it can help all the
departments to avoid trouble before it even gets out of hand because very few cases actually ever go the
ethics board. I think that we should all look at this as a positive tool rather than a threat. So can we think
about his statement?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes, but to correlate that of course is again, under the current situation, no
one would come forward because there is no vehicle to come forward. Yes, we're taking a risk but you're
taking a risk right here. There's five members here, we could discuss something in executive session and
you're taking that risk that one of these five human beings might go outside and spill the beans and leak
something. I'm not taking it lightly, I'm saying that it is something that has to be, maybe tied down better
but at least it allows us to think about that where currently we don't have a vehicle for someone to come
forward. There is no protection vehicle, there is no vehicle period.
MR. RA YHILL-But at the same time, do you think that you should think about making it a review process
similar to the suggestion of Mrs. Goetz so that people will feel that they are reviewing government rather
than making an assignation of an individual...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes.
MR. RA YHILL-And trying to make it as fair and above board as possible and to treat everybody concerned
as equitable as possible.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes, I do.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well I think that's kind of said in the law, I really do and I believe that, you
know, somebody has a complaint and they're carrying it through the ethics advisory council, as I read this
law, I would say they must identify themselves to that council. But that's between them and the council at
that point. Now if they want to go out and make a public accusation, I'm not sure that you can prevent that.
MR. RAHILL-I think Mr. Brandt that you and the Board can govern that by expressing the intent of the
Board in being legislatures. Will I be correct in making that statement?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You're making a legislative track, is what you're saying.
MR. RAHILL-Yes, in other words, what the intent of the Board in this process is.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Under purpose, we could probably add a line under purpose just to re-
empathize the fact that any and all whatever is to be held confidential.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think my recommendation would be from a legal standpoint anyway, wherever
you can, you should always try to spell out the law or put in the law what you want as opposed to putting in
an intent or purpose because a court reviewing a law, will rely upon the exact words of the law first and
only if it finds that the law is ambiguous will it then travel backwards to go to the intent or the purposes or
even what was said at this meeting. To the extent that we have the ability to put it into the law and make
changes or try to spell it out better, my advice would be of course to do that now and not put it into a
purpose or intent clause, at least if we can avoid it.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -How can we do it?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Yes, that's what I was going to say.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well, what is it that you would like in? I guess I'm trying to ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Can I make a suggestion, I think the purpose of a public hearing is for us to
listen to the comments of everyone involved. We shouldn't start tinkering with this tonight, we should
tinker in a workshop and we should save this public hearing to listen to what the people out there are
saymg.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's a public hearing, it is a workshop. I don't, I mean ...
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I know, my feeling is though that when you start tinkering with something,
as you get one comment and then another comment, before you get down, you may have an instrunlent that
you don't want.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We could get into needle chasing here, that's for sure.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's right but we should be listening to everybody first and then start
working on changes.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Okay but you can also get and define the point that he's trying to make and I
think that's important.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But let's compromise both of these points then, and let's hear out what
everybody has to say. At the end of it, maybe there will be an answer to Mr. Rayhill's comment, maybe
there won't and maybe that's something we can handle but lets hear everything and then go from there. Is
that agreeable? I mean, somebody may come forward and offer something that would solve Mr. Rayhill's
point. I think that's what Betty is trying to say.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay.
MR. RAHILL-You can... your final legislation. Thank you very much.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else?
ELEANOR OUDEKERK-I'm an employee and apparently it doesn't apply to me anyway but I did have
some comments and some things which I want to clarify and some of which you've already clarified. One
of them was the receipt of unopened disclosure forms which I do feel is a good point because I had a note
here of confidentiality being important. I guess one of my questions was, there are two boards, there's an
ethics advisory council which and I had a question, do the ethics board and the ethics council also fall, are
they subject to the closure law? If not, why not?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- There's an easy answer to that, but go ahead.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The boards would not, they would not have to meet in public they would be eligible
because they would be talking about the employment history personnel type of items that are typically
properly held in executive session. Technically the boards to be in full compliance with the law would
have to meet publicly but then make a motion to go into executive session to discuss a particular item and
the law does not require, when they make that motion, that they release that persons name. So everything
would stay properly in executive session.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's not the question she asked though.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's not her question.
MRS. OUDEKERK-My question was are they subject to this particular disclosure law when they're
appointed to the boards?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Do they themselves have to fill out these forms?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Oh yes, yes.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Okay.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then who judges them?
MRS. OUDEKERK-Yes, right.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well the law in the very beginning indicates for the most part, well actually in
places, in the disclosure provisions and the definitions that, it includes every employee, officer, member of
any board and since they would be an ethics board, they would be a member of a board and they would be
subject to not only the ethics law but they would also be subject to the disclosure requirements unless they
were specifically exempted and they're not, at least not now.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-So who would be looking at their information, the other members of their
two boards?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well that specific item hasn't been addressed.
MRS. OUDEKERK-I guess the other question I had was, that was one thing I had as a question. The other
one was, it appears to me that the ethics advisory council upon my reading of this, unless I'm mistaken, has
essentially the same powers as the ethics board accept that the board goes one step further and takes this
matter to the Town Board. Is it possible to do this with one board?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-You're correct, the bulk of the work goes to the advisory council.
MRS. OUDEKERK-That's right.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-And I think it's a system of checks and balances really. That, you know, if the
advisory council decides that it is serious enough to go to the ethics board, it's other people looking at it.
So you've got even more input on a serious situation.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Now you say that the Wilton experience is, that they have not very often used the
board itself.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-Right.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Now does that indicate maybe, the council does such a good job that they don't need
the board and need these five extra people.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-It's possible. They said their first case was a horrendous one where there was a
major conflict of interest on the Planning Board and they just started out with this tremendous case that
they had to handle. Yes, from what they've told me, it seems like it's such a good tool, they are able to head
off trouble before it ever reaches the ethics board. But your thinking that the ethics board is like, just
somebody that we didn't need? That they could go one step further?
MRS. OUDEKERK-Well I was just wondering. I mean, this is ten people you're going to go out and try to
find.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But it's a distillation process and the more people you distill it through, the
more likely you are I think and this is what the intent is, to come to a good honest answer. The first group
kind of goes over the rough and tumble of it and they look at and they say, there's nothing here. But if they
see that there's something there, then it goes on to five other people. Then what Mr. Rayhill, one of the
concerns that he brought up and that's that someone would be treated unfairly, might not happen. I mean,
there's no gods here but going through two boards, going through ten people, distilling through that, it
seems to me that that gives a better chance of coming up with the proper judgement.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Of course, going the next step always, it assumes that it didn't get resolved at the first
step.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-It assumes it's serious, that's what it assumes.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Right and it's very serious when it gets to the Town Board.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes.
MRS. OUDEKERK-And that's where it becomes, and that is the only point of which it becomes public and
when it reaches the Town Board, it becomes a matter of public record.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That's right. If it comes out of the second board and then it goes to the Town
Board and then both those boards have a chance to resolve the situation with the individual. But if it
doesn't get resolved, then it goes public at that point it comes to the Town Board.
MRS.OUDEKERK-Right. I think those were my major questions and I guess the other question is kind of
a, it's a general question. This disclosure form seems entirely appropriate for public elected officials who
the public, I mean, they really need that kind of information, it does seem quite broad for people who are
appointed employees who already have maybe signed an ethics form which saying, which in essence says,
that they will disclose any conflict they have which will interfere with their duties in whatever position they
are and that sort of thing.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well that's one of the big things that's come forward so far and I have had
several phone calls, I know at least one or two other board members have had phone calls regarding just
that. It's something that has to be looked at very carefully. It's difficult, I don't like to see, I personally
don't like to see people who are volunteers put through an arcuate situation that may cause them not to
volunteer. But it's something that we're going to, I assume, since we've talked about this before, that we're
going to look at very seriously about the disclosure on the volunteer people.
MRS. OUDEKERK-Okay, that concludes my remarks.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-However, she brought up an interesting question. Who watches the
watchers? It's possible, it strikes me when I'm sitting here, that you could have the other board do that. If
there was something that came up on one board, you could write into your law that the other board would
look at it. That's the first thing that hits me.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that's kind of occurred to me as well, that would be a good idea because if
they're all required to file forms, it seems that the advisory committee shouldn't file the forms with
themselves, maybe you make them file it with the other board.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Right. Either that or a firing squad, one of the other.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Or file it with the Town Board.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I want to keep the Town Board out of it.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-No, I think the Town Board should be completely out of anything like that.
DAN VALENTI, Valenti Builders-Tonight I'm representing the Queensbury Businessman's Association.
I'm going to read a statement so I reflect the exact feelings of the association. Okay?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Sure
MR. VALENTI-It's very short. As representative ofQBA, we basically agree with the concept of the new
ethics law as it would apply to paid employees of the Town. We believe that this law, as written, seems to
be too cumbersome as it relates to volunteers and non paid committees. It would in effect cause the losts of
quality volunteer help. A compromise seems to be needed and we feel a committee should be formed of
local residents and business people in assisting the Town in writing this law. The QBA would be very
happy to send a representative to work with such a committee. Thank you very much.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Okay Danny, thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I have a specific one that, in the disclosure statement.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-What page?
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-It starts on page 7 but my real point goes to page 9 and there it's going through
the various things you disclose and the last thing on page 9 it's a disclosure of all liabilities. I think that's
very harsh. Being in business and I think sometimes it may not even make sense. For instance in business,
very often you co-sign notes for a corporation or a partnership that you're involved in and those are
contingent liabilities. I have no problem once they become a liability that they have to be disclosed but if
they're a contingent liability, I think they would fall under this category as it's written today.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think your right.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I don't think that serves any purpose except exactly what the QBA was saying, it
sure will chill out alot of people from taking part in government. In the county law, contingent liabilities
are exempt, specifically exempt. There again, I just, this is something that struck me today and I think it
has to be put on the table.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well, I think what we're looking at here though is, we're trying to put
together a law which hopefully will be our working model for a long, long time. It strikes me that there are
very few and I can't see a great ground swell with people who are against this law in general, in fact from
what I've heard, they're for it. There are some inequities and those inequities are with regard to volunteers.
Now that sounds easy and Dan presented their case and it was very easy but in fact the Planning Board is a
volunteer organization and certainly without casting any dispersions on the people who are on the Planning
Board, there are potentials for conflict. So it's not that easy a matter. But I guess what I suggest is, since
this is a law that we intend to live for a long, long time and since we've narrowed it to a very, very limited
scope in terms of what people are concerned about, why don't we take 2 weeks and ask for some input and
see what kind of input we get from people who are bothered by this. One of the problems we have of them
coming forward, is the fact that the very act of them coming forward presupposes, in some peoples mind,
that there's something wrong. I don't want that, that's not what this is all about. So I have no, I personally
have no reason not to have some input over a 2 week period or whatever that time limit is. I want to go on
with it, but I think we can and by that time too, we can have answered Mr. Rayhill's question and we can
have solved the question that was brought up by Mrs. Oudekerk. So I think that Valenti brings a good
point up.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Couldn't we keep the public hearing open for a period of time and invite input,
invite comment?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-You certainly could, that's permissible under the law.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Okay. Well we're still in public session, so anybody else?
BRUCE CARR, 16 Lynnfield Drive, Queensbury-I have some problems. I'm on the Zoning Board, as
some of you may know and I'm also an attorney working for a firm here in Town. The way I read this and I
would address this to Paul I guess, is that, because I work for the firm, I have an interest in any of their
clients and if they appear before any Town Board representing one of their clients, than because I'm
interested in the outcome, I have violated the ethics law. So I read that as precluding any member of my
firm from appearing before any board or agency or department of this Town. I was just wondering, am I
reading that correctly?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think as it's currently written, I think it's a fair statement.
MR. CARR-I mean being attorneys, one of the exempt employees are the Judges and the people of the
Unified Court System. However, that's just the definition of employee, that does not exempt out from
appearances. So therefore we could not appear in the Queensbury Town Court or else I would be guilty of
an ethical violation.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'm not sure you couldn't appear before the Town Court, I don't know that my
interpretation would be that someone in your firm could not appear before the ZBA or the Planning Board
however. Right or wrong?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-First of all, my feeling was, having worked on this obviously and read it over before
we came to tonight's meeting, that it would not preclude your firm from, or even you for that matter, I don't
think going before the court. At least, I never picked that up as the intent but on the other hand, once again,
as some of the other times I've mentioned here tonight, I think that's a good point that ought to be clarified.
Certainly, because in the broadest sense, the court could be viewed as an agency or a division of the Town
if you will. So that probably should be addressed to clarify if that's also consistent with what the Board
thought. As far as the other boards though, that is a point, that is a question for the Board. As it's currently
written, your firm could not come before the Planning Board for instance, I think your on the Zoning
Board, so they couldn't come before the Planning Board. The question is, does the Board want to allow
that or not want to allow that? Right now, the law would not allow that.
MR. CARR-As I understand it, they couldn't appear before any agency of this Town.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Right, it would be any agency, that's correct.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But you could disclose the fact that, one of his attorneys, could disclose the
fact that he has one of his partners is a member of the Town of Queensbury ZBA and then leave it up to
other judgements to make the determination. As long as it's on the record, I don't see that it makes any
difference. I mean let's be very open about it. I had a conflict of interest, every time we write an ad since I
am paid a percentage of everything that goes into the Glens Falls Newspaper Advertising Department,
which is why I abstain from every vote. But, maybe in fact I need to do even more than that maybe I need
to write a letter indicating something that's how seriously we take it though.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Or maybe Nick you have to take that one step further and not take a
commission on any ads. I'm very serious about that because that has been done in many places.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Just to air my dirty laundry here. I talked to the publisher today and I am
going to submit a letter so that the accounting department deliberately deducts what is paid by the Town of
Queensbury to Glens Falls Newspapers that way I don't have to worry about it. I also will abstain, but I'll
wear the belt and suspenders both.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That's another thing that Bruce perhaps needs to do and that is, I assume
with a partnership or agreement or whatever you would call it within the legal firm that part of your income
does not include any money that earned appearing before the Town when you get a percentage of some
other attorney appearing before the Town.
MR. CARR-That's very difficult to do, I'm not a member of the firm, I'm simply an employee of the firm.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Okay, if your not a member, alright.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Ifyour not a member of the firm then you don't have a problem.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-If your not a member, than I don't see where you should have a problem.
MR. CARR-That's not the way this reads though because it says ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Your not an owner and that's what a member of the firm is.
MR. CARR-A firm, partnership, association of which an official or employee is a member or employee and
I am an employee of a firm.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's true.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Oh that, you're going to grab everybody in this Town before you get down
with that.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Where is that?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I mean that is so broad that ...
MR. CARR-Page 2, B2.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I find that this thing is much broader than the New York State Conflict of
Interest Law that I've gone by for years and years and years ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Y ea but there's a new one coming that's going to be even worse than this.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-They're changing that though Betty.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That may be which we haven't seen. I'm saying the one that's on the books
right now when it starts getting into so many ramifications.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just might mention that the New York State Law, on interest anyway, and this may
explain why there's little difference, or major difference I guess. The New York State Law which is what
this was modeled after, focuses only in on contracts with the Town. But it also contains the exact same
language that a person will be deemed to have an interest in the contract of a firm, partnership or
association of which such officer or employee is a member or employee. So the New York State Law is
similar. This one becomes broader though because it has, or more stricter than the New York State one, is
because it goes beyond the contract relationship with the municipality and goes into the business,
professional transaction or other relationships. So this one becomes a tougher law, the one that the Board is
considering than the New York State Law because now you're considering any relationship, whereas New
York State your only considering a contract between the firm and the Town of Queensbury. But the
language is similar.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-But you see what we've got here is we've got a problem because I can see
Bruce's position. He is not a partner if he was a partner I could understand, but he's not he is an employee.
If in fact, that Ray Supply was still doing business with us and they are not, what your saying is that one of
their employees couldn't do business with us and that maybe a little too much.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-In a small community when you start getting down to things like this, your
throwing about everybody out that can do anything for this Town.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-My only comment to that is, that there are 2 main problems, 2 main
problems, not only 2 problems, that any government faces today. One is the financial side of it and the
other is the pure distrust on the part of the public of their government at any level and all we're doing here
is attempting to ...some of those fears, that's all.
COUNCILMAN TUCKER-Paul, Bruce is on the ZBA, would he be obeying the law if he took himself out
of the system when his firm came before the ZBA? In other words, he have, take himself right out of the
system?
MR. CARR-I do that now.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-That isn't the problem, that's not the problem.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-His problem is, if Bob Morse comes and, yea, your with him, right, now,
comes and argues a case in front of the Planning Board, even though he's on the ZBA, he can't, because
Bruce is on the ZBA.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But what we're saying, the way this is written now Pliney, the law firm in
which he's just an employee, he is not a partner, has to turn down any client that wants that firm to appear
before any agency of this Town. It could be in front of QEDC, it could be in front of anybody.
MR. CARR-Just to clarify a point, I'm not limiting it, I know you're limiting it, if I was a partner there be a
different situation and I don't agree with that either.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't either, really, to be honest with you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think what we really have to do is look at where the potential abuses are and
see why we have this kind of wording. Maybe it is totally too restrictive and maybe in workshop we can
bat that around and look at it very carefully and see if we can identify where the potential problems are and
reword that. I think it's certainly a major point.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I think you have to depend somewhat on the integrity of people and I know
it's always been my policy to do disclose any interest that could be conceived by the public to be a conflict.
Even when it is not under the definition of New York State Law or the Town Law, because if it makes me
uncomfortable, then I feel I should step back away from it.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I wish everybody felt that way.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-I see this as a positive thing though because it helps people when they're filling it
out to see where there might be a conflict of interest because I don't think people go out and say, I'm going
to have a conflict of interest.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, not at all.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-It helps you to see it and I was on the Zoning Board for 10 years and I saw one
person in particular vote when they shouldn't have in more than one instance. So that's why I have a
concern about this although I see your point on the item that you brought up.
MR. CARR-One other point please. Page 4, under F, being a professional here in Town who has appeared
before the Zoning Board and Planning Board prior to my service to the community who has not appeared
before the ZBA but during my 10 year on the ZBA have appeared before the Planning Board at one
occasion and hopefully to practice in this field once again, once my service with the Town is done. I have a
problem with the one year limitation prohibiting me from practicing my trade in the Town of Queensbury.
I agree with Queensbury Businessman's Association in that, this is putting a real damper on any related to
Town business in a professional sense from wanting to participate on any of these boards. Your basically
asking them to give up their livelihood in return for what I consider to be some sort of community service.
I think that you're going to harm the boards by taking away from them, at least one or two members, who
are of a professional nature, who practice in this area of law or area of expertise or whatever. Specifically
myself, Jim Martin with Shelter Planning, I think there would be plenty of potential conflicts for Mr.
Martin although I have not spoken with him on this matter specifically. I find it a little strange that I
couldn't not appear for a client for one year and yet I could buy a track of land and appear to develop it
myself. So if there's a perceived influence that I have, that you're saying I can't use that perceived influence
for a client, but I can use that perceived influence to further my own gains.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I don't think it's perceived influence. First of all, as far as our discussion was
concerned, the State is twice as long, it's two years. We have cut it to one year, is that correct?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, does the State apply to paid employees or does it apply to non-paid
employees also?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think the State Law your right, I think it probably is just the state workers.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yeah, which is an entirely different situation.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well on the other hand as you brought up the other night, one of the reasons
for this is the fact that it's more than just perceived influence it's the fact that it's a training ground for you,
not for you Bruce Carr, but for you develop a training ground in this year. It is to prevent, what's the word
I want to use, it's to prevent the perceived conflict if you will of having worked for the Town for the sole
purpose of developing clientele so that you can turn around and become a millionaire lawyer or whatever
you want to be.
MR. CARR-But, I guess I could turn around become a millionaire land developer for my own benefit.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-You could there are a lot of them here.
MR. CARR-That just seems to me to be kind of ... the question and if there's a conflict with you getting
some personally gain out of it whether it's money from a client or your own, I don't see the difference there.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Nick if you remember it, my comments really did apply to paid employees
of this Town.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Yes, that's true. However, he serves in a very sensitive spot. Again, we're in
that quandary of the fact that the Planning Board and ZBA are not, are not paid and yet have, especially the
ZBA, has strong influence.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else?
CONNIE GEBO-I'm a Town employee. I just have one question. If you're told to fill out this disclosure
thing, but your spouse or co-owner is a union member and he's protected by the union and can't disclose the
information and if I don't fill it out or an employee doesn't fill it out and they said they can be fined 10,000
dollars?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I might be able to answer that. It's not a matter of being protected by the union, for
better or for worse, that was the designation of recommended to the Town Board because it easily captured
basically non-managerial or policy making employees. Because the thought was, is that the disclosure
statement was important from elected officials as well as appointed people or people that were in the
management or in the policy making or given approvals and things of that nature. That's what I think as I
understood the Board, that's what they wanted to gather and it occurred to me when I was drafting part of
this that, well the union is a good way to just use the word union, because it will eliminate all the people
that they didn't really want disclosure statements from anyway. In the case of an employee whose married
to a union, say a non-union employee and a union employee, the union employee would not have to fill out
the disclosure statement but the non-union employee would have to and in the end, most likely, disclose the
union employees obviously sources of income, etcetera. But it's not like a violation of anything, it's just a
matter of that's the coincidence of the two people who happened to be married. But's it's not a violation or
it's not like against the union policy or anything like that.
MS. GEBO-But the union says that they can't fill out this disclosure thing.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I haven't heard that. That wasn't why it was put in the law.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, then I think though you come down to a basic point of right and what's
morally right and equality and why are we treating one employee different than another employee that are
on the same level.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well they're not though, that's the whole idea.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes you are.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- They're not on the same level.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, they're not, because if they were, they both be in the union or they both would
be managerial. The goal here was, as I mentioned, was to capture the managerial or the policy making or
approvals. For instance, if my wife worked in Town and was part of the union, would that mean that I
shouldn't necessarily disclose? I don't think so. I think you wanted me to disclose, you really didn't care
about her, but she's going to get picked up by accident. Just for the record, my wife does not work for the
Town.
MS. GEBO-But I'm neither managerial nor union.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yes, that's what I'm saying. You're capturing people in this law that do not
fit either one of those categories.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well we had also said, also excluded were secretarial and clerical. If we need to
broaden that category, the Board can certainly do that.
MS. GEBO-Are they going to tell whose considered under the clerical? Because we don't know whose
clerical. Whose considered clerical?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-We can, I mean that's easy enough to clarify.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We can do it by job title.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I think it's really a matter the question gets down are you policy making, you
know what's the influence. I think that an awful lot of jobs are clerical in nature and probably not subject to
that. But there again, we can certainly make a definition and clean it up.
MS. GEBO-And for the sobriety testing, I don't drink on the job, I don't drink at all. I mean like, you say
you take it or else does that mean if I refuse your going to automatically assume that I'm guilty and I will be
fired?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That is not in this particular Ethics Law. Your referring to a town policy that was
adopted sometime ago. I didn't read it over before coming tonight so I'm really not prepared to comment
on that particular question.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The answer to that question is, I don't know.
RALPH VANDUSEN-I'm an employee of the Town. I certainly understand the need for an ethics law and
disclosure law, I whole heartily agree with that. I would request it has been commented that whenever
possible that we write it in language that's pretty clear for a non attorney to understand. No offense, but
there is a lot of extremely long sentences a lot of words that probably are very clear to an attorney and a lot
of words that aren't very clear to a chemist. I'd appreciate it that under the Prohibited Activities section,
page 3, paragraph D, there is an exception for gifts amongst town employees could you explain to me what
that says?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Yes. The thought was is that the Town Board does not want to necessarily preclude
town employees from the customary practice among some employee not all, but of exchanging birthday
gifts or giving each other christmas gifts and things of that nature. It's not unusual in a department for
somebody to bring in a cake on somebodies birthday as you know or perhaps get that person a small token
gift of some kind. I don't want the public to think there's elaborate gifts being exchanged among the
members or the employees but that was what it was designed to do.
MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, the last couple of lines on page 4, say something about turning a gift over to the
Town.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's in the event that, that was another area that came up and that is it was thought
that sometimes employees receive gifts in the Town and it's not possible to refuse them or exchange them
or return them. For example, maybe an employee has an experience with a member of the public and the
member of the public feels for some reason that they want to drop off some flowers or some other token
gift and maybe they can't give them back or maybe the timing of the return of the gift would be impractical.
The thought here was that rather than having a bad situation arise, where you couldn't return a gift and the
poor employee is stuck with it, the thought was, just turn it over to the Town and leave it for Town
purposes. Like somebody gives flowers, you put them in the center of the atrium and it goes for Town
purposes.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- To give you a practical answer, it was just last week. One of our employees
was given, sent a note in the mail because he did something nice for someone and in that note was a ten
dollar bill and he put that in the general coke fund and the coffee fund downstairs.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would have returned it.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- What?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I would have returned that. If anybody gave me a gift of money for doing
something nice, I would return that. That's an automatic type of no-no, as far as I'm concerned.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well whatever, that's what happened.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Under this ethics law, by the way, you would have to return that type of gift because
you could do so, the ethics law provides that where it's not practical, reasonable or possible, then you don't
have to, you just simply turn it over to the Town. But in all other situations, you would be expected to
return a gift whenever possible.
MR. VANDUSEN-Okay.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's why that get's a little long by the way. There's two conditions that we tried to
grab in there.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I sometimes wonder though Paul, that this can't be set up so we don't have
long sentences, we can chop them off or we can, I don't know, outline it or something or other. Because
this does, by the time you get done at the end of these long sentences, I'm never sure where I started and
where I ended and where my thoughts got chopped up.
MR. V ANDUSEN- The previous ethics regulation on that was pretty clear. It was relatively short, it was a
25.00 dollar cut off and that was it. It was relatively simple for us poor layman to understand. This
appears to be more restrictive and certainly much more cumbersome to understand.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Well there's no question that this is more restrictive, because it's my understanding
that the Board felt the previous law seemed to allow some gifts come in and the Board felt that it was more
appropriate not to allow any gifts and that's really what we were trying to do here.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-And something we can take, whatever law is adopted and take it out of legalese
and put it into a policy manual that's more explicit and maybe written a little simpler.
MR. VANDUSEN-That would be appreciated.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I agree with you a 100 percent.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Except we need to know what we passed in the first place, Mike.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-That helps.
MR. VANDUSEN-Under 14.5B, the prohibited activities, it appears that, in my terms, if you're involved
personally, you can not involve yourself in any discussion of that.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I believe that's correct.
MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, alright, when I go to the disclosure of interest, the next page, 14.6A, it says if
you're going to discuss it, you have to disclose that. I don't understand the difference, if you can't discuss it,
then why disclose it, then discuss it. It seems to be an inequity there.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can answer that. The first one deals with official capacity, dealing in your official
capacity. The disclosure presumes that you will in some part participate in an unofficial capacity as a
private citizen.
MR. VANDUSEN-You can step down from a board and talk as a private citizen?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, no, you wouldn't step down from the board, but it would be as a private citizen
on another matter. For instance, it wouldn't necessarily be before your same board, I guess that's what I'm
trying to say. You're thinking of a situation where the individual steps down from his own board and
comments. I'm thinking of a situation for instance, not to pick on the boards but they're the ones that come
to mind, somebody is on the ZBA and wants to comment on something on the Planning Board, in his
unofficial capacity, that's what this is getting into. Where as the other one prohibits them from taking
anything, in their official capacity, from acting upon anything they may have an interest in.
MR. V ANDUSEN-A couple of places within the disclosure, it makes reference to involvement of
employees with businesses that are involved with the Town or dealing with the Town. Generally a
business, if a business provides a service and your going to pay for that, I assume that is a business.
Specifically our department provides a service, we expect payment from our customers. We have 5,900
accounts in our Town. Does that mean that if Ralph VanDusen wants to buy a share of stock with a
company that's doing business, now I can't do that, I have to disclose that in writing before I can buy that
one share of stock?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well it's percentage isn't it?
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-It's five percent, isn't it.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Five percent.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Where do you see a five percent in here? It used to be in some of the others
but where do you see that five percent?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-I'll have to find it for you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Because I brought that up one time.
MR. VANDUSEN-On page 5, B.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Page 8, E.
MR. VANDUSEN-On page 5, B, it just says if you intend to buy stock, it doesn't say anything on a
percentage.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What are you looking at Ralph?
MR. VANDUSEN-Page 5, B, about the fifth line from the top of the page. It just says that if! intend to
acquire ownership of stock or options to buy stock, then I notify in writing.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Ralph, where are you please?
MR. VANDUSEN-Page 5, B, the second or third line ofB.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I see a vast difference in an employee working for a water department who sells
water to someone in the Town of Queensbury, that's what the department does and someone whose selling
the water department chemicals or valves or something like that. I think there's a hell of a difference.
MR. VANDUSEN-Wholeheartedly I agree. I agree. Definitely because as it's drawn here, I'm not sure
there's the distinction.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Yes and I think that's the point, that's certainly a point, I see that he's making and
I have no problem with any of our employees dealing with anyone that is receiving a Town service. They
all get highways, they certainly, many of them get water and I don't see that. Somehow that distinction has
to be made.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Here again, I don't think this is something that was intended to be picked up in terms
of dealing with people that your selling water to. The thought was, is the, as Mike mentioned, the suppliers
of parts and stuff, is what they wanted to prohibit.
MR. VANDUSEN-Sure, that's fine. It's just that when you tell Ralph VanDusen that, of the potential for
fining of 10 grand or Ralph, you're going to lose your job, I have to get picky, I can't afford not to.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- That's what this is for.
MR. V ANDUSEN-I'mjust looking to, looking for answers.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -It's good input.
MR. VANDUSEN-Just as an example, that recently there's a firm dealing with recreation that mailed out,
as an advertising gimmick, a packet of seeds to some of their customers and that's fine. My family
happened to receive one of those, it's certainly an excellent market technique.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -I know such a firm.
MR. VANDUSEN-It's just that they happen to be a water customer and I don't view that as a conflict of
interest in my job.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Are you going to change that Paul?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I've made a note on it, yes.
MR. VANDUSEN-When we file this disclosure act, each year when this gets filed you make a listing of
what's happened in the past twelve months.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's correct.
MR. VANDUSEN-In other words if a firm that I do have an involvement with does something I'm not
going to disclose it for several months.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-No, what would happen is this. In the disclosure statement itself it's only requiring
when you fill out that part of it, it's only requiring obviously that you could only report what you know
today and what you knew for the previous twelve months. You wouldn't necessarily know what's about to
happen, you may, but you may not. The disclosure law picks up on that difference and requires you to
report as soon as you do know something is going to happen. So what would happen is you would fill out a
disclosure statement in the beginning of the year as required under the law and then if something comes up
during the year you would file a written notice with the appropriate board or agency depending upon whose
involved of your interest in a contract or something else that comes up. So it does get picked up in the
system as you go along. Then in the following year, you would then picked it up on the disclosure
statement, of course.
MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, page 8, paragraph D, list below all sources of income in excess of 5,000 dollars.
Is that 5,000 net, 5,000 gross? I assume that's 5,000 for the previous year, not what you plan to do or hope
to do.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Welllet's make it gross.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Yes.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What's the difference, it's 5,000 dollars.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Gross, I don't see how we can get into net.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-That's a good question that was raised. Is it what they anticipate during the course
of the current year or is what they did last year?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- To me, logic says it's what they did last year that that's a known entity.
MR. V ANDUSEN-I would think you have to.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-What your going to get, is going to be an unknown entity.
MR. VANDUSEN-Okay, there's a section here that we list whatever property that we own. In the case of
income property, I can understand that. You would include in that your primary residence as well? Is that
something that you really care about?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-Where are you at?
MR. VANDUSEN-Nine. Actually it starts at eight. Please indicate below the location, general nature and
acquisition date of any real property in the Town of Queensbury in which direct, indirect, vested or
contingent interest.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-As written it would include everything.
MR. VANDUSEN-I'm not sure I understand the benefit of everybody listing their home in this case.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What do you do if you own a home and twenty acres ofland and the twenty
acres start to impact income? I'm talking about subdividing off something.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Then it's not your home anymore. When you go to a subdivision and only
your home stays your home what you subdivided off is not your home.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The only thought there being that, initially it wouldn't show up in the disclosure
statement and then something would happen during the year where it's not on the disclosure statement.
But, if it was all up front on the disclosure statement then if that question arose during the course of the
year reference could be make to that.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Of course, we have an Advisory Council which would meet to determine
whether or not Mr. VanDusen or someone else was trying to pull the wool over your eyes. I think your
own personal home is all ready a matter of public record.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-All you've got to do is go to the tax records.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-What if you live in your business? Some people do, I don't know the answer to
that. I think generally speaking in my estimation it's not very important of your home unless it is your
business, unless it has other implications. I don't know how to make that distinction.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Will see what we can do.
MR. VANDUSEN-Thank you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, I find that kind of very broad. I guess, I'm with a lot of the other
employees who think that reading this we're probably all ready breaking the law whether we intend to or
not because of the way it's written.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-On the disclosure statement?
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Yeah, a lot of it you know. To go back to what Ralph was talking about.
Eight, (f), please indicate below the location, general nature and acquisition date of any real property of any
real property in the Town of Queensbury in which direct, okay what is indirect interest?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-You could have a remainder interest.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I don't even know what you mean to be honest with you so I don't know if
I'm breaking the law.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think you would if you had one. For instance, if you had a sister who was a life
tenant to property and upon her death you would get that property that's the type of thing that's being
expected to be disclosed.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I might not know that.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-On a life estate.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-You can't reveal what you don't know. If your not privilege to the information
and it comes down to reasonable within the law.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think that's what this also indicates at the very end. It says that, I have read the
foregoing disclosure and to the best of my knowledge and belief. I don't think that the law is necessarily
imposing on you an absolute finding here. It's just asking you to be reasonable and answer the questions
and do the best that you can to provide the information. If you get away from using words like indirect,
vested, and things like that then I'm afraid you start getting into the area of really being vague. I know
these are a little bit legalistic, but on the other hand at least they give some guidance.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-I guess I'm going to be a knit picker in defense of all the employees in this
Town. I know of families where spouses do not even know what the other spouse owns and only find it out
by death or some other way.
COUNCILMAN GOETZ-To the best of their knowledge.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- To the best of their knowledge it says.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-But, I'm saying we're having a lot of people sitting out there on tender hooks
thinking their breaking the law because they don't know this knowledge.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I can make a comment on that too. That is I've compared this particular disclosure
statement to the disclosure statement that is required by state law for municipalities over fifty thousand as
well as other state employees too. There are two sets of disclosure statements this one is easier in terms of
what it requires then the other ones. If you look some of the information that is required from even the
county level cause they have to follow the state that's a much tougher disclosure law. This one is really a
modified version in an attempt to try to make it a little easier. Even on the county level and the state level
they require information about the spouses.
LEE YORK-This afternoon, I didn't have very much time to read through, but I did pick up a guide to the
Ethics Law in New York State. I was particularly interested in the restrictions regarding page 4, article,
section F which I believe Bruce Carr already mentioned. I fully agree with number E, but the reason for F,
seems to elude me. Here in this, the New York State Ethics law, basically what it says is, if you work for a
State agency and you leave, you can not come back and have any practice or communicate any services for
compensation with respect to any thing that you were directly concerned with and personally anticipated or
was under your act of consideration. So it refers to your signatures on a bid contract, giving of a grant or a
permit application or other submissions. It also gives exemptions from coverage of that kind and basically
it exempts people, for example, what if I went to work for DEC, I was working on a project in the Town of
Queensbury that would benefit the community. You've said here that I can't come before the Board and
maybe that's something you want to consider. As far as my understanding, well since I've been here, we
had four individuals who have left the Town employment and appeared before the Boards. One was in the
Building and Codes Department, another acted as a Town Engineer, one was in the Planning Department
and one was a Town Attorney. You know, I enjoy working with all four of them because they already
know the rules and regulations. I don't think they've ever received favored treatment of any kind and I
really don't understand what this one year clause is attempting to do. I mean, I can understand it if you
have a personal interest in something and have been involved in it and then come back and represent that
case before a Board. But maybe you could explain this one year term to me.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I think the thought here is, is to preclude basically any representation of other clients
before the Boards for a period of one year. I would just make a note then, this might be something that
you, I don't know if your pamphlet is up to date or not.
MRS. YORK-Well this is just, it is brief.
ATTORNEY DUSEK-The public officer's law does require under paragraph 8, it says that no person who
has served as a State Officer or employee shall within a period of 2 years after the termination of service or
employment appear or practice before such State Agency or receive compensation for services rendered by
such former officer or employee on behalf of any person, firm, corporation, etc. and goes on, so this is
really modeled after that provision. It's a clause that will eliminate that possibility if you will of an
employee who has contacts within the system so to speak, from coming back into the system after the first,
you know for the first year.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Paul, excuse me for a minute. The State says, if I'm hearing what you're
reading correctly and what Lee is saying, that you can not come back and appear before the agency that
which you worked with. We're saying you can not come back and appear before any Town agency for that
period of time. Am I correct when I make that differentiation?
ATTORNEY DUSEK-I just want to make sure. I think you are. Then go on and they have differences, the
State has differences for people that are in the legislature and other things but generally it seems to that they
are trying to block the agency. When this paragraph was drafted on behalf of the Town, the thought was is
that the Town is a much smaller entity and that everybody kind of knows everybody at this point. I mean,
the other recourse is to say, that you can't just simply come back before the board that you were on. I mean
that's a possibility but it's going to narrow it alot.
MRS. YORK-What I have here is a paragraph and it's says, as the general attorney has noted, State
employees who know they are leaving State service, may consciously or otherwise give favorable treatment
to potential employers or act so as to situate themselves better for contemplated employment in the private
sector. I'm not sure that was one of the concerns rather than feeling that a person before a board maybe
given special treatment. I think our boards are very fair and honest and always concerned with any
impropriety at all and I have never known anyone who has left Town service to be given special treatment.
So I just wanted to clarify that with you. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else?
DEAN BECKOS-I'm a resident of the Town of Queensbury, President of the Queensbury Economic
Development Corporation. I'll keep my comments brief to you, I'm sure the subject has been covered. I
question the wisdom of a law like this. The risk that occurs by being so stringent is that the Town of
Queensbury will potentially lose a great amount of talented, hardworking, volunteer people within their
boards. It seems to me that this law takes a very broad shotgun approach to a perceived conflict of interest
problem that mayor may not exist or mayor may not be a large problem. I think ultimately the great loser
in the adoption of a law like this, would be the Town itself because of the loss of, what I would say, the loss
of volunteer people within the boards. That's really all I have to say.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Well we have already said, as you probably well know, there has been a
discussion about that and what we're going to have, at least what I have proposed, is a moratorium period of
some couple of weeks in which we will ask for alternatives from the public. Dan Valenti came forward and
offered QBA to do that and I hope that you folks will do the same thing, where you'll give us some
alternatives without risking the fact that somebody is looking jaundice at you, it's before we have a final
workshop on this thing.
MR. BECKOS-Okay, thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else? Come on right up.
MR. RA YHILL- I just have several points that I would like to bring up based on what I've heard so far.
They are of concern to me with regard to your proposal. First of all, lawyers have a code of ethics and I
know that you value lawyers on the Planning Board and on the Board of Ethics or on any other board that
you have. But they have a code of ethics which governs their activities and I would think that their code of
ethics would govern their behavior before the board and within the community of businessmen and realtors.
I think that's something that you might want to look into and perhaps have the lawyers themselves respond
to. I have another statement. I think Mr. Caimano made a very good assessment of the process in saying
that this is intended as a filter, he was talking about the Advisory Council. In talking about a filter your
talking about a group of people who are going to look at something carefully to see if in fact there is
anything that seems dishonest in the behavior of an individual in the community and keep it quiet until they
have arrived at a decision, I think that's a very good statement on his part. Mrs. Goetz has reviewed this
and said that she felt based on the Wilton process that she looked at it as a review process. Basically the
same to see if the behavior of town officers, town employees are ethical behavioral processes. Once again,
it's a review process before you go to a board. I think that's great. You're not trying to indite anybody,
you're not trying to hurt anybody, you're just trying to ask people to do what they ought to do. Let's face it,
one of the greatest philosophers in the world, was Immanuel Kant who wrote the categorical imperative,
make the willing of your action an universal law of nature, do onto others as you would have them do onto
you. With regard to the question of planning. I know that architects have a code of ethics also. If
somebody is a planner he or she should be covered within the code of ethics of architectural and architects.
I think that's something that you would want a planner to look into also and respond to you with the
dissonances or consonances of their code of ethics with your code of ethics. With regard to board
members, a number of people have made the statement that you would not find as many board members
because they would be restricted by the laws or by the appearance of a conflict of interest. What I'm asking
here is whether you want disinterested board members or interested board members? Disinterested means
that they have no ax to grind and do not want to make a money on their service. I'm not saying that
anybody does but disinterest is a very important word here. Thank you.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO- Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Anyone else?
WALTER MEDWID-I live on Laurel Lane. A few years back there was a significant project in Town
called the Earltown project and got me involved in government. I must say, one of the chilling aspects of
that whole affair was, the sense that officials, either elected or appointed to significant bodies, did not
recuse themselves from participating in the vote on that particular project. I would like to support in
concept what you are doing. I think as difficult as this process is and as difficult this is making the lives of
certain individuals, I think that one of the things to be gained from this process is the fact that people in
participating in government we feel that the cards are not being stacked. That there is a fair playing field
and I think as you go about your deliberations a few years back, that was clearly not the case and I hope in
the future that democracy participation by the public can be enhanced by having this ethics law in place.
Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Anyone else who would like to comment?
HAROLD RATHBUN, Moon Hill Road-What I have to say might not be pertinent but it's refreshing to me
to see a board finally after 30 years as a resident that I voted for. A couple of years ago I appeared before
the Zoning Board of Appeals, I had made a formal request of Miss Goetz. A developer was making a
development in my area and he had a survey map made up that appropriated for him several hundred
square feet of my neighbor's properties. We had a problem. The Zoning Board of Appeals with Michael
Muller on it, an attorney that made a decision after reviewing various deeds, etc., that we did have a
problem and that there should be no further action for the developer until the discrepancies were corrected.
By the time this got through all the boards on advice of our counsel who exists now, he said that we were
neither attorneys and since there was no ... pending at that time, that we didn't really have a problem. Well
it turns out in this problem, that myself and several of my neighbors, it's cost an excess of 15,000 dollars.
Two of the neighbors had won concessions from the developer that in fact they had wrongly appropriated
their land. I can't help but think there had to have been some conflict of interest some where along the line
and I hope this will resolve problems like that because two of my neighbors could not afford the money that
it cost them. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment or criticize or
whatever? We loved your input. We're saying we ought to, it's our intent I think here to keep this public
hearing open probably for a matter of weeks and to take input and maybe have a workshop. See if we can
find some answers to some of the points that have been brought up here. There's some very valid points,
we feel that way. So probably we need to set a workshop to work on this yet. Next week is a formal
meeting and I didn't bring my calendar with me but ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-No, today is a formal meeting.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-The following week ...
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Next week is open, the 13th is open.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-Well then, let's do the 13th. Is there anything else scheduled on that? I don't
know of anything but let's schedule it for next week to work on this and continue the process and keep the
public hearing open. So if you have any thoughts and you're not too comfortable to come here, give them
to us. Let us know in writing or otherwise. I think it's a very important law and I think we shouldn't take it
lightly. Whatever we do here, we ought to look at it very carefully and minimize the mistakes of when we
first write it. Every time you try and put a law together, you think you see how its going to address certain
situations and you always over look other certain situations. So the more of those we can figure out ahead
of time, the better. Anyone else?
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-We ought to have a central depository for people like Dean and Dan who
want to send things. Send them to all of us or send them to the Supervisor's Office? Some central place.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT-I would be glad to accept them at the Supervisor's Office and we'll share them
with everybody on the Board as they come in. Okay, then I'm going to move on. We're not going to close
this but we're just going to move on in business and leave this open and conduct other business.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN-Mike, may I make a suggestion, that some people may not want to just offer
ideas and I'm thinking of QBA and QEDC, they may actually want to take a section and actually rewrite the
section rather than give us an idea so that we have something concrete to work with.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -That's fine.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-They can do it if they want.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -Or come into workshop.
COUNCILMAN CAIMANO-Come to the workshop too.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT -And work with us. We're very approachable I think, try to be. Okay, any other
comments at this time?
(five minute recess)
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION APPROVING MINUTES
RESOLUTION NO. 206, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mr. Pliney Tucker.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby approves the Town Board Minutes
of March 9th, 16th, 19th, 23rd and March 30th of 1992.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker,
Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Mrs. Monahan (3/23/92,3/30/92), Mrs. Goetz (3/9/92)
RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION
RESOLUTION NO. 207, 92, Introduced by the Entire Town Board.
WHEREAS, The Town Board of the Town of Queensbury, was very pleased to receive a visit from the
Vice Mayor Sadao Tominaga of Saga City, and
WHEREAS, The Visit of Vice Mayor Sadao Tominaga included an entourage of students from the Saga
City School District and residents of the region, and
WHEREAS, The residents of the Town of Queensbury in New York State, the United States of America,
are very appreciative of the Sister Cities program between the City of Glens Falls, and a school in Saga
City and the Queensbury School, and
WHEREAS, The Saga City delegation presented the Town of Queensbury with gifts in commemoration of
the visit between our two communities on Monday, March 30, 1992,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town Board, speaking for the residents of the Town of
Queensbury, hereby expresses its sincere appreciation for the welcome visit of the Saga City delegation and
the thoughtful presentation of gifts to the Town of Queensbury.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes
ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
RESOLUTION NO. 208, 92, Introduced by the Entire Town Board.
WHEREAS, the Queensbury High School Girls Basketball Team, the "Spartans," recently completed an
outstanding season, winning 26 of the 27 games played, and
WHEREAS, the girls team won all their games in the Foothills Council, and went on to win the Section II
Tournament and the Regional Championship, and
WHEREAS, the Queensbury Spartans were one of only 16 teams in the state competing in the New York
State High School Girls Basketball Championship Tournament held at the Queensbury High School March
20th through March 22nd, in the year nineteen hundred and ninety-two, and
WHEREAS, this outstanding team of girls played remarkable basketball in the state tournament, losing the
state championship by only one point,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Board, representing the residents of the Town of
Queensbury, does hereby recognize the outstanding efforts of the Queensbury Girls Basketball Team, the
"Spartans," and commends them for their team spirit, their dedication to sportsmanship, and their
achievement in the state basketball championships.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes
ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None
ABSENT: None
Councilman Goetz requested that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to Lloyd Mott, Athletic Director.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FURTHER ALLOCATION OF FUNDS
RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT OF KESTNER ENGINEERS, P.c.
AND VERN HOFFMAN, SOILS ENGINEER
RESOLUTION NO. 209, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Mrs. Susan Goetz.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is currently involved in an arbitration with Joseph
R. Wunderlich, Inc. concerning certain contract claims arising out of the construction of the Central
Queensbury Quaker Road Sewer District, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board by Resolution No. 49 previously authorized the
employment of Kestner Engineers, P.c. to assist in the arbitration, and
WHEREAS, Kestner Engineers, P.c. has contacted the Town Attorney and requested a
further allocation of funds on the basis that further time is needed by his firm and that some services of
Vern Hoffman, Soils Engineer, are also needed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes further use
of the services of Kestner Engineers, P. C. and use of the services of Vern Hoffman, Soils Engineer, up to a
sum not-to-exceed $2500.00 with the understanding that the services will be billed at an hourly rate and
that the only payments to be made to Kestner Engineers, P.c. and Vern Hoffman, Soils Engineer, shall be
for services actually performed, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that this expense shall be paid for from Account No. 001-1440-1750.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT
WITH THE VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
RESOLUTION NO. 210, 92, Introduced by Mr. Pliney Tucker who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mrs. Betty Monahan.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into a contract with the Veterans of
Foreign Wars, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid contract has been reviewed and is presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract
set forth above, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract be paid from the previously budgeted account.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz,
Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPERVISOR TO SIGN CONTRACT
WITH THE AMERICAN LEGION
RESOLUTION NO. 211, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Mr. Michel Brandt.
WHEREAS, the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entering into a contract with the American
Legion, and
WHEREAS, the aforesaid contract has been reviewed and is presented at this meeting,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to execute the contract
set forth above, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that payment due on said contract be paid from the previously budgeted account.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following
vote:
AYES Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano,
Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION CONCERNING SEQRA REVIEW AND
TO SET PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE - REGARDING PETITION
FOR CHANGE OF ZONE - F. T. & E. P. COLLINS
RESOLUTION NO. 212, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mr. Michel Brandt.
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is presently considering an amendment,
supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and map, and more
specifically considering a petition for change of zone by F. T. & E. P. Collins, whereby a parcel of land,
known as Tax Map Nos. 105-1-10, 105-1-11 and 105-1-12, would be changed from LightIndustrial - 1
Acre to Highway Commercial - 1 Acre, thus modifying the existing Zoning Ordinance and map, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board for the Town of Queensbury has reviewed the aforesaid Petition
and rendered an advisory opinion, recommending the rezoning, and also recommended that, if the applicant
can get written consent from two adjoining property owners, that they be included in the rezoning, the
aforesaid advisory opinion being set forth in a motion and minutes presented at this meeting, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury notes that the aforesaid adjoining
parcels proposed to be included in the rezoning are also zoned Light Industrial - 1 Acre and bear Tax Map
Nos. 105-1-14,105-1-15,105-1-7,105-1-8,105-1-9, and 105-1-4.2, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury is desirous of entertaining the Petition
for Rezoning and a rezoning of the other parcels recommended by the Planning Board, and, in order to so
amend, supplement, change, modify, or repeal the Ordinance and map, it is necessary to complete a
SEQRA review, notify other involved agencies and hold a public hearing prior to adopting said proposed
amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury shall hold a public hearing, at
which time all parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, upon and in reference to
a proposed amendment, supplement, change, and/or modification to the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance and map, which consists of the rezoning of certain property in the Town of Queensbury from LI-
1A (Light Industrial - 1 Acre) to HC-IA (Highway Commercial - 1 Acre), said affected property being
located in the vicinity of and adjacent to Bay Street, near its intersection with Homer Avenue, and bearing
Tax Map Nos. 105-1-10, 105-1-11, 105-1-12, 105-1-14, 105-1-15, 105-1-7, 105-1-8, 105-1-9, and 105-1-
4.2, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby indicates it desires to be
lead agency for purposes of the SEQRA review and hereby authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator
to notify all involved agencies of this proposed action and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent and
to forward all involved agencies this Resolution, Part I of the Environmental Assessment Form, the Notice
of Public Hearing, the Petition for Change of Zone, and the Planning Board Motion and Minutes made in
connection with this matter, with notice to the other agencies that a lead agency must be agreed upon within
30 days and that the Town Board desires to be lead agent, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that said public hearing shall be held on April 27th, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., at the
Queensbury Activities Center, 531 Bay Road, Queensbury, Warren County, New York, 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 the notice presented at this meeting 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 Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby authorizes and directs the
Town Zoning Administrator to ascertain a list of the names and addresses of all property owners within
500' of the area to be rezoned, and further authorizes and directs the Zoning Administrator to arrange for
notification of the proposed rezoning by mailing a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to all property
owners whose property is proposed to be rezoned to Highway Commercial and those property owners
within 500' at least ten (10) days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby authorized
and directed to give written notice of the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of
Queensbury in accordance with the written notice presented at this meeting, to be delivered 10 days prior 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 265 of the Town
Law of the State of New York, the Zoning Regulations of the Town of Queensbury and the Laws of the
State of New York, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator of the Town of Queensbury is hereby authorized and
directed to give notice of said proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance and map, and notice of
hearing to the Warren County Planning Agency and the Planning Board of the Town of Queensbury, and
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that the Zoning Administrator of the Town of Queensbury is also hereby directed to
give notice and refer this matter, if necessary, to the Adirondack Park Agency in accordance with the laws,
rules and regulations of the State of New York and the Adirondack Park Agency.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES Mrs. Monahan, Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker,
Mr. Brandt
NOES : None
ABSENT: None
DISCUSSION HELD BEFORE VOTE:
Councilman Monahan referred to Planning Board Resolution, questioned the advertising for this hearing,
whether it includes the constraints recommended by the Planning Board.
Attorney Dusek noted, when I drafted this, I felt and always felt that you can make conditions at the time of
the rezoning, even if you don't advertise them.
Mike O'Connor, representing Applicant, we have no objection to those constraints or conditions, following
the recommendations of the Planning Board.
Supervisor Brandt recommended to advertise as is, without listing constraints and conditions.
COMMUNICATIONS
Ur from DOT, regarding speed limit request on Queensbury Avenue, Denied - on file.
Petition - Residents of Bayberry Drive and Bayberry Court, regarding Zoning Change, from MR5 to SFR20
- on file.
Petition - Regarding Subdivision of Mr. Guido Passarelli, Developer, proposed development adjacent to
Bayberry Drive and Bayberry Court, known as Brookview Acres - on file
Ur from Vincent Cavallari, Vice-President of the Queensbury High School Environmental Science Club,
regarding "Adopt a Highway" project - on file
Supervisor Brandt noted, it was a great idea, his office would be glad to work with them on that.
DISCUSSIONS
Supervisor Brandt noted, there's been some recent complaints made to our Building and Zoning
Department, regarding trash burning in the Town of Queensbury ... would like to make people aware that
it's against the law in Queensbury.
Councilman Goetz noted, the Town Board held a neighborhood meeting in South Queensbury Saturday
regarding sidewalks on River Street ... very good meeting, very beneficial with about 35 people present.
Councilman Monahan noted that Jeff Matt, constituent and local attorney submitted a copy, to our
Attorney, of a proposed local law addressing outside waste coming into our landfill ... would like to see this
go to workshop for discussion.
OPEN FORUM
9:20 p.m.
BRIAN GRANGER, referred to "Adopt a Highway", sent a crew of my men to clean Luzerne Road from
the car wash to West Mountain, creating four pickup truck loads of trash. We'll absorb that and put it into
the dumpster but if the trash could be dropped off at no charge to the landfill, that would encourage us to do
that again.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT, the Town I think should be happy to pick up the cost at the landfill, I think we
can arrange that with you.
COUNCILMAN MONAHAN, personally, I would like to commend Brian and his company for doing this
service to the Town.
CAROL PULVER, referred to Red Lobster, would like to know what the Town Board is doing to
encourage this business to continue their search to look for a place within the Town.
SUPERVISOR BRANDT, noted that I personally have written as the Supervisor, a letter to the people of
Red Lobster offering our services to help them find another location if they care to do that in the Town of
Queensbury. I pointed out to them that there was a great concern about the particular site that they had
chosen because of the traffic that's there and because there was a federal grant to study the traffic at that
point and that the traffic study won't be done until September, it was pretty tough for the Board to consider
creating more traffic until we've got some kind of idea what to do with that particular location. I suggested
there were many other sites and that we would be glad to work with them.
MS. PULVER, referred to required medical physical's by the Town and questioned whether there is
mandatory drug testing.
ATTORNEY DUSEK, would have to research.
MS. PULVER, would like the Town Board to consider required drug testing.
OPEN FORUM CLOSED
9:30 p.m.
RESOLUTION APPROVING AUDIT OF BILLS
RESOLUTION NO. 213, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mr. Michel Brandt.
RESOLVED, that the Audit of Bills appearing on Abstract April 6th, 1992, numbering from 92-109300
thm 92-155600 and totalling $1,160,776.26 be and hereby is approved.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Goetz, Mr. Caimano, Mr. Tucker, Mrs. Monahan,
Mr. Brandt
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Councilman Monahan, Vendor #0453, Community Workshop
Councilman Caimano, Vendor #0127, Glens Falls
Newspapers
COUNCILMAN GOETZ noted, Beautification Committee submitted 2 bids that were received for putting
up poles for banners, corner of Bay and Quaker Roads.
Mike Baird Signs, submitted quote of $520.00
KD Wheeler Custom Signs, submitted quote of $725.00
Town Board questioned the discrepancy in bid proposals, noting they're bidding different proposals ...
Beautification Committee needs to go back, get more information and have them bid the same proposals.
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 214, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mr. Michel Brandt.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Regular Session and
enter Executive Session to discuss one matter of Property Sale, two matters of Litigation and one matter of
Personnel.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes
ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None
ABSENT: None
RESOLUTION TO RECONVENE
RESOLUTION NO. 215, 92, Introduced by Mr. Nick Caimano who moved for it's adoption, seconded by
Mr. Michel Brandt.
RESOLVED, that the Town Board of the Town of Queensbury hereby adjourns from Executive Session to
enter Regular Session of the Town Board.
Duly adopted this 6th day of April, 1992, by the following vote:
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: Ayes
ALL THOSE OPPOSED: None
ABSENT: None
No further action was taken.
On motion, the meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
DARLEEN M. DOUGHER
TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY