UTICA — Utica City Hall was closed. The city’s workforce in the building has been reduced to essential personnel.
Despite the coronavirus pandemic, the Common Council found a way to pass a $72.5 million budget for 2020-21 on time.
While the council originally planned to vote at City Hall with a meeting closed to the public, plans were changed last minute to a videoconference on the WebEx platform. The meeting got underway well after its planned 9:30 a.m. start time as council members set up their audio and visual communications.
In the end, the budget passed unanimously.
Emails of public comment were received by the Common Council prior to its vote and members acknowledged having read them prior to the final votes.
The budget includes a property tax increase of 1.9 percent. The tax rate is proposed at $27.03 per $1,000 of assessed value, up from $26.52 in 2019-20.
An amendment to increase the mayor and comptroller’s salaries was added by council vote, with council members Celeste Friend and Delvin Moody voting against the legislation.
Councilman Frank Meola submitted the legislation to increase the mayor’s salary to $93,500 and comptroller’s salary to $80,500. Last year, Mayor Robert Palmieri made $80,481 and Comptroller William Morehouse made $68,768.
The mayor of Utica previously made less than mayors in similar cities like Rome and Schenectady. The raise was made possible by moving funds already in the budget, including a typographical error of $9,000 on the deputy police chief budget line.
Friend said due to the city’s state of emergency, work layoffs and the portion of the city living below the poverty line, she was opposed to raising the mayor and comptroller’s salaries. She said she’s comfortable with the idea of a raise, but not at this time.
“That we will give him a raise under these current circumstances is just utterly appalling,” Friend said.
While Moody fully supports the current mayor and raising the salary for the mayor’s position, he voted against the raise Friday because he wants to see it done at a different time after a review of raising salaries.
“I wanted to vote in line with that and review the proposals to raise salaries, in light of what’s going on, at a later time,” Moody said.
Councilman Joseph Betrus Jr. said it was a difficult decision, but not agreeing to the raise would not benefit those struggling with the COVID-19 epidemic.
“It’s not like we’re giving all this money back to the people,” Betrus said. “The raise (in property tax rate) is 1.9 (percent) regardless of what we do.”
Posted February 23, WKTV live interview:
www.wktv.com/content/news/Celeste-Friends-First-Town-Hall-568122921.html
This Monday, February 24th, is Celeste Friend's first Town Hall meeting. It will run from 7:00pm to 9:00pm at the Notre Dame Elementary School on 11 Barton Ave in Utica and is open to the public. Residents of South Utica are especially encouraged to attend.
This Town Hall will serve as a general introduction of Mrs. Friend to her Ward. There will be many tasks addressed, including what Friend has accomplished over the past couple months on the Council, issues she intends to research and develop legislation for, and field any questions her Constituents may have.
UticaOD Good, Bad, Ugly:
www.uticaod.com/opinion/20200222/good-bad-and-ugly
UGLY
Committee restructuring needs restructuring
Members of the Utica Common Council really should consider revising its Rule of Order to create real committees that are more in line with the structure seem in New York cities of similar size.
Under rules adopted by the Council Feb. 5, seven standing committees, with four members each, have been replaced with nine select committees. Each committee is chaired by a different council member, while the membership for each is the entire Common Council.
That essentially eliminates committees, which was the goal of Councilman Frank Meola in the first place. He and Maria McNiel, D-1, proposed the change.
You can put as much lipstick on this pig as you want. It still squeals. Under the new set-up, a committee cannot meet without a majority of the council present. That means if five members decide to not attend a “committee” meeting, the other four can’t discuss legislation.
“As compared to other municipalities it is a clear departure from the norm,” said Council President Mike Galime. “I’ve always been one who is OK with being different, however, the nature of this transition is exactly why people have an issue trusting government in Utica.”
The rules of order were approved by a 5-3 vote. In addition to Meola, D-4, and McNiel, Robert Burmaster, D-2; Frank DiBrango, D-at large, and Jack LoMedico, D-at large, approved the change. Delvin Moody, D-5, Celeste Friend, D-3, and Joseph Betrus Jr., R-6 , opposed. Mark Williamson, R-at large, was absent.
UticaOD:
www.uticaod.com/opinion/20200212/clever-flaw-eliminates-committees
Delvin Moody may be a newcomer to the Utica Common Council, but he wasn’t about to be fooled by a revised committee system under the council’s new rules of order that he described as “flawed.”
It’s a pretty clever “flaw.”
Under the previous rules of order, the Common Council had seven committees, with four members each. The reorganized committees — now nine in number — each include all members of the council, with a council member chairing each one.
Frank Meola, D-4, who sponsored the legislation to change the structure with Maria McNiel, D-1, originally wanted to eliminate committees entirely.
Well, in a sense, he did.
This new committee system turns every committee meeting into a meeting of the entire council. The original legislation required every council member to attend all committee meetings, but that was revised to make attendance voluntary.
Still, it forces all members to show up for the committee meetings — Meola suggests they be held prior to the council’s 7 p.m. Wednesday meeting — if they want to know what’s going on. Since each council person heads a committee, that means nine committee meetings, one after another.
Said Councilwoman Celeste Friend, D-3: “That strikes me as just an enormously inefficient way for a group this size, with this diverse set of interests, expertise ... to proceed.”
She’s right. Also disturbing is that this makes committee discussion dependent on a quorum, says Council President Mike Galime. If five of the nine council/committee members decide not to attend a committee meeting, no discussion can take place. Under the previous arrangement, a committee could still talk about issues if all members weren’t there.
Previously issues and proposed legislation discussed in committee were reported on well in advance of the full council meeting, giving members time to review and digest the information. Now, it’s possible to introduce legislation that same night following the committee meeting, affording members little time to review or prepare legislation.
Meola says the new structure will streamline the legislative process and allow all council members to ask questions relevant to the legislation. In the past, only a couple members of the committee would be able to meet with city officials and department heads at separate meetings.
Moody, D-5, and other newcomers — Friend, D-3, and Joseph Betrus Jr., R-6 — voted against the change. In addition to Meola and McNiel, Robert Burmaster, D-2; Frank DiBrango, D-at large, and Jack LoMedico, D-at large, approved. Mark Williamson, R-at large, was absent.
A better plan would seem to be the one outlined last month by Galime, who assigned council people to smaller committees based on their individual interests, experience and ward issues.
“Outside the norm of taxes and paving, citizens had a lot to say about flooding, new projects in our parks and the need for youth centers, construction and development, and general codes enforcement during this election cycle,” Galime said. “The committee system should reflect a balance of the services the city provides and the issues people would like to see solved.”
You’d think so.
Posted UticaOD:
www.uticaod.com/news/20200217/utica-common-council-rules-differ-from-peers
The rules of order adopted by the Utica Common Council at its Feb. 5 meeting include a number of changes to the way the legislative body does business.
Seven standing committees, with four members each, have been replaced with nine select committees. Each committee is chaired by a different council member, while the membership for each is the entire Common Council.
The changes set the Common Council’s committee structure apart from other similarly sized cities in New York.
Rome, Binghamton and Schenectady each use three-member committees, appointed by the council president. Troy creates committees with at least three members, aside from the finance committee, which includes all members with the council president as chair.
Niagara Falls, which has a five-member council, gives the council leeway to establish ad hoc or standing committees to review or recommend proposed legislation.
Troy has an active council committee system, according to city council President Carmella Mantello. The committee meetings are streamed on YouTube and allow for more informal discussion between the mayor and city administration in a public session, she said.
“Considerable debate takes place in committee and allows possible amendments before the legislation hits the full City Council at a regular meeting,” said Mantello in an email.
The number of committees varies from city to city. Schenectady has eight committees, while Binghamton and Rome have five and six, respectively. Troy has seven committees.
Common Council CommitteesDifferent city councils in Upstate New York use different configurations in number of members and what topics they address.
Utica
Nine committees with nine members each. The committee chair is designated by the Common Council president.
Government relations; Liaison/Comptroller’s Office/Budget Director; Media, TV, Cable and Internet; Finance/Budget; Codes, Neighborhood Preservation & Municipal Housing Authorit; Public Works/Transportation; Parks, Youth, Recreation, Veterans & Seniors; Economic Development, Harbor Point, Urban Renewal Agency and Downtown Utica Development Association; Public Safety, Police, Fire, City Code, Charter
Binghamton
Five committees consisting of three members. Members are appointed by the council president.
Finance; Employees; Municipal and Public Affairs; Public Works/Parks and Recreation; Planning and Community Development
Rome
Six committees consisting of three members.
Laws & Rules; Finance; Municipal Operations; Youth, Education, Parks & Cultural Affairs; Community & Economic Development; Public Safety
Schenectady
Eight committees consisting of three members. Members are assigned by the council president.
Administrative Efficiency; City Development & Planning; Claims; Finance; Government Operations; Health & Recreation; Public Safety; Public Services & Utilities
Troy
Seven committees of at least three members assigned by council president. President serves as non-voting ex-officio member of committees and is chair of finance committee.
Finance; General Services; Law; Planning & Economic Development; Public Safety; Public Utilities; Science & Technology
Other changes made to the rules of order more directly affect how legislation is submitted and reviewed by the Utica Common Council. Any resolutions and ordinances submitted to the city clerk are distributed to the council members, Common Council president and council attorney. In the past, legislation was first presented to the Common Council president, who selected the committee it was placed into.
Under the previous rules of order, legislation could not be discussed at the caucus meeting prior to the council’s regular meeting unless it was properly presented through the committee system. An exception could be made for any legislation if the rules were waived by a majority vote of the council.
Under the new rules of order, no requirement to submit legislation through the committee system before it can be voted on at the main meeting is detailed.
Other cities, like Schenectady, pass legislation through their committees and require committee approval before voting in regular meetings. Schenectady city code allows legislation that failed to receive committee approval to be placed on the agenda for a city council meeting if it has at least one cosponsor.
The City of Binghamton has first readings of legislation that has passed through the committee system and to its regular business meeting. After the first reading, the legislation is automatically assigned for a second reading at the next regular business meeting or a special meeting called for the legislation.
The new rules of order also make changes to exceptions to the Thursday rule, which requires council members to submit legislation by the end of business the Thursday prior to a regular meeting of the Common Council.
The exceptions include transfers, bond ordinances, “special legislation” from the city’s law department and resolutions or ordinances that are time sensitive. The Thursday rule can also be waived by a majority vote of the Common Council.
Common Council President Michael Galime said committees have effectively been eliminated as a committee cannot meet without the attendance of the majority of the Common Council. If only up to four members of the council wish to discuss legislation in committee, they don’t have the votes in a full council vote, he said.
“As compared to other municipalities it is a clear departure from the norm,” said Galime in an email. “I’ve always been one who is OK with being different, however, the nature of this transition is exactly why people have an issue trusting government in Utica.”
A sponsor of the legislation that changed the rules of order, Frank Meola proposed eliminating the committee system outright in January. During the Feb. 5 meeting, Meola said the changes are intended to get as many council members to deliberate on legislation as possible.
The rules of order were approved by a 5-3 vote.
Council members Celeste Friend, Delvin Moody and Joseph Betrus Jr. voted against the changes. Councilman Mark Williamson was absent.
Posted Feb 11, 2020 at 9:23 PM Utica OD
UTICA — Local government representatives fielded questions and provided updates on efforts to mitigate flooding in the city of Utica during a public meeting Tuesday night.
Councilperson Celeste Friend organized the meeting, which was held at 7 p.m. at The Community Foundation of Herkimer and Oneida Counties. It was the second in a series of public outreach and informational sessions Friend has organized in the wake of devastating flooding in the Mohawk Valley last Halloween.
Representatives from the offices of U.S. Rep. Anthony Brindisi and state Assemblywoman Marianne Buttenschon, the City of Utica and state Department of Environmental Conservation and Oneida County Land Use and Zoning spoke. Oneida County Legislator Tim Julian also attended the meeting, which saw a turnout of about 40 people.
Randall Young, director of DEC Region 6, discussed some misconceptions about permits for clearing streams and other bodies of water. He said a permit is only required if the work involves disturbing the stream bed or bank.
“If there’s debris in the stream and you’re not disturbing the bed or the banks, that can be removed without a permit,” Young said.
City of Utica junior engineer Stephanie Wurz addressed mitigation in areas especially affected by flooding, like Brookline Drive. She said a city contractor cleared every catch basin and stormwater and sanitary sewer line in that area following the Halloween flood.
Other problem areas in the city have been outfitted with trash racks to catch debris but still allow water to flow, Wurz said.
While the city is looking to mitigate problem areas, it needs to ensure the water isn’t simply redirected, she said.
“So we all have to work in conjunction with making sure we’re not creating solutions for some people, while creating a problem for someone else,” she said.
Residents’ questions ranged from concerns about the impact of flooding on their personal property to questions about the possibility of a hydroelectric dam. There were also questions about the impact of new construction and debris on flooding.
Young, Wurz, City of Utica Budget Director Heather Mowat and Oneida County Land Use & Zoning Principal Planner Kristin Campbell fielded questions for nearly an hour.
Opinion
Clever ‘flaw’ eliminates committees
Delvin Moody may be a newcomer to the Utica Common Council, but he wasn’t about to be fooled by a revised committee system under the council’s new rules of order that he described as “flawed.”
It’s a pretty clever “flaw.”
Under the previous rules of order, the Common Council had seven committees, with four members each. The reorganized committees — now nine in number — each include all members of the council, with a council member chairing each one.
Frank Meola, D-4, who sponsored the legislation to change the structure with Maria McNiel, D-1, originally wanted to eliminate committees entirely.
Well, in a sense, he did.
This new committee system turns every committee meeting into a meeting of the entire council. The original legislation required every council member to attend all committee meetings, but that was revised to make attendance voluntary.
Still, it forces all members to show up for the committee meetings — Meola suggests they be held prior to the council’s 7 p.m. Wednesday meeting — if they want to know what’s going on. Since each council person heads a committee, that means nine committee meetings, one after another.
Said Councilwoman Celeste Friend, D-3: “That strikes me as just an enormously inefficient way for a group this size, with this diverse set of interests, expertise ... to proceed.”
She’s right. Also disturbing is that this makes committee discussion dependent on a quorum, says Council President Mike Galime. If five of the nine council/committee members decide not to attend a committee meeting, no discussion can take place. Under the previous arrangement, a committee could still talk about issues if all members weren’t there.
Previously issues and proposed legislation discussed in committee were reported on well in advance of the full council meeting, giving members time to review and digest the information. Now, it’s possible to introduce legislation that same night following the committee meeting, affording members little time to review or prepare legislation.
Meola says the new structure will streamline the legislative process and allow all council members to ask questions relevant to the legislation. In the past, only a couple members of the committee would be able to meet with city officials and department heads at separate meetings.
Moody, D-5, and other newcomers — Friend, D-3, and Joseph Betrus Jr., R-6 — voted against the change. In addition to Meola and McNiel, Robert Burmaster, D-2; Frank DiBrango, D-at large, and Jack LoMedico, D-at large, approved. Mark Williamson, R-at large, was absent.
A better plan would seem to be the one outlined last month by Galime, who assigned council people to smaller committees based on their individual interests, experience and ward issues.
“Outside the norm of taxes and paving, citizens had a lot to say about flooding, new projects in our parks and the need for youth centers, construction and development, and general codes enforcement during this election cycle,” Galime said. “The committee system should reflect a balance of the services the city provides and the issues people would like to see solved.”
You’d think so.
https://www.wktv.com/content/news/State-and-local-officials-address-South-Utica-flooding-concerns-567786191.html
Free speech must not be restricted
By CELESTE FRIEND
The right of citizens to address their government is a core principle of democracy.
Whether it be expressed through letters to the editor, marches on Washington or protesting outside of our senators’ offices, we always retain the right to participate fully in our own government by speaking truth to power.
Public comment at Utica Common Council is one important way in which this core principle is upheld and practiced.
Public comment serves several purposes. Most obviously, it allows individuals to bring grievances directly to their government. It also ensures that those who occupy elected positions in fact know the views of those they seek to represent. Third, it ensures that all members of the Common Council are aware of problems in a part of the city, whether or not that Council member is bringing such matters to their collective attention.
But perhaps most important, public comment provides yet another avenue of gathering information about issues relevant to the city. There are 10 members of Common Council, who together represent more than 60,000 residents of Utica. It would be arrogant for those 10 to decide that they know all that needs to be known in order to legislate effectively.
Public comment provides an invaluable source of information about the city to the Common Council.
Because public comment is such a valuable source of information, it should be as unrestricted as possible. Clearly, there must be reasonable time limits for each speaker. It is also reasonable that speakers not be allowed to shout, threaten, swear, or use derogatory language directed at any group of protected persons. It is also reasonable that speakers be instructed not to attempt to engage any other person in a debate.
But beyond this, no restrictions on the content of a speaker’s remarks are justified. People often use public comment period precisely in order to criticize their government, even if this includes disparaging remarks directed at public officials. To restrain people’s ability to do so violates the very purpose of public comment.
On Jan. 15, the Utica Common Council chose to repeal and replace its rules governing public comment at its regular meetings. The rules that were replaced were in some ways too lenient and allowed speakers to be disruptive.
The new rules, however, are repetitive, cumbersome, confusing, logically inconsistent and unjustifiably restrictive. According to the new rules, people are not allowed to be “disparaging” of elected officials or other city employees. These new rules risk violating the First Amendment, placing unreasonable and unconstitutional restrictions on what speakers can say when they come before the Council.
There is no Constitutional right to a forum such as public comment. Rather, one has the right to speak at public comment only if lawmakers choose to allow it. But, once there is such a forum, those same lawmakers cannot arbitrarily and unjustifiably infringe on what a speaker can say. Federal and state courts have reaffirmed this time and again: once a public comment period exists, speakers cannot be unduly restricted.
New York State’s Open Meeting Law reinforces this right. While public bodies are not required to set aside time for public comment at their meetings, once they decide to do so, they are explicitly prohibited from restraining the content of such speech on the grounds that it is negative or critical.
If one is interested in the history of disparaging speech directed at government, one need look no further than the Declaration of Independence. Read to the end and one encounters nothing but disparaging remarks about the King of England.
Our Founding Fathers understood that in a democracy, criticizing those in power must never be infringed.
Celeste Friend is a member of the Utica Common Council, representing the Third Ward.
UTICA — The Utica Common Council has new rules governing their public comment period during meetings, following the passage of a resolution during Wednesday’s meeting.
The new rules were the subject of an extended discussion during the caucus pre-meeting. Some community members who spoke during the public comment period expressed concern the Common Council could remove the public comment period.
On Nov. 20, 2019, the public comment sign up sheets were removed prior to the meeting. During the pre-meeting caucus, Anthony Garramone, the Common Council’s attorney, introduced legislation that would have suspended the public comment period for the remainder of the year.
Nothing came of the proposed legislation, and Garramone declined to reveal the council member who proposed the legislation to him, citing attorney-client privilege.
The Common Council never discussed eliminating the public comment period during Wednesday’s meeting, but did spend time debating the specifics of the rules of order governing it.
Councilperson Celeste Friend proposed her own version of rules to govern public comment, which was weighed along rules written by Garramone and sponsored by council members Maria McNiel, Mark Williamson and Frank Meola.
Following deliberations by the Common Council, Councilman Jack LoMedico made a pair of motions to amend the rules of order pertaining to public comment.
His first amendment swapped in Friend’s language for the first subsection, dictating the length of the period — 30 minutes, as before — and the content of the comments, which is the speaker’s views on anything pertaining to city business.
LoMedico’s second amendment added “disparaging” to a subsection of the rules prohibiting “derogatory comments about anyone’s race, religion or other orientation.”
Friend spoke out against issues with the proposed resolution, including possible issues with wording of several subsections. She said she found disparaging to be a very subjective term and found the wording “other orientation” to be unusual.
While the vote passed by a 8-0 margin, with McNiel absent, Friend qualified her affirmative vote. She said she voted yes because it was important to preserve public comment.
“I do have a number of problems with this legislation, how it’s written,” Friend said.
A decision on the rules of order concerning the Common Council’s committee system was tabled during Wednesday’s meeting.
