3.75 YEARS LATER LOU SPEAKS UP #TroyCrazy

From: "MayorsOffice." <MayorsOffice@troyny.gov>
Date: September 9, 2015 at 11:26:15 AM EDT
To: "Rodney Wiltshire" <wiltshire@troycitycouncil.com>, "Ken Zalewski" <zalewski@troycitycouncil.com>, <coconnell@mmlesq.com>
Cc: <all-members@troycitycouncil.com>, "Ian.Silverman" <Ian.Silverman@troyny.gov>, "Peter.Ryan" <peter.ryan@troyny.gov>
Subject: Letter to Council President Wiltshire

September 9, 2015



Rodney G. Wiltshire, Council President
Ken Zalewski, Council President Pro Tempore
Joseph Liccardi, Esq., Legislative Counsel
Troy City Council

433 River Street

Troy, New York 12180



I write this letter directly to you three gentlemen related to the conduct of the City Council meeting on Thursday, September 3, 2015.  I feel obligated to comment on the manner in which the three of you allowed this meeting to be conducted.



            As you are all aware §2-25 of our City Code provides citizens the opportunity to comment at each regular council meeting.  Under Council President Wiltshire the format of such public comment has been changed.  Now, rather than allowing citizens a ten minute block of time prior to the agenda, citizens are allowed five minutes prior to the agenda to address the Council on legislation on that meeting's agenda and five minutes after the agenda is complete on any subject appropriate to the conduct of Troy City government.



            Council President Wiltshire, you pulled Ordinance 91 which sought to amend the City Code dealing with “Signs” prior to the 6:45 Special Finance meeting and therefore was not on the agenda for the Regular Meeting.  Yet you allowed eleven speakers to comment on this matter. In fact, not once but twice you attempted to advise the speaker that Ordinance 91 had been pulled and thus any comments related to such ordinance were inappropriate at this time.  Yet you continued to allow the speakers to comment. Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised given the fact that you opened up the City to liability by allowing a woman to defame an innocent man at a Council meeting earlier this year.



            I am also concerned about your seeming ability to pick and choose when rules apply and which rules apply depending on the situation.  Ordinance 91 was presented to the council via email on Tuesday morning over 48 hours prior to the City Council meeting.  A notice was sent out Tuesday advising the public that Ordinance 91 would be considered at the Special Finance meeting.  Proper and legal notice was given.



            However, Ordinance 91 was unilaterally pulled by the Council President without any opportunity to discuss the propriety of such a measure.  Legislative Counsel Liccardi, you cited § 2-28 of the City Code in “support” of Council President Wiltshire’s move.  §2-28 states:



            “The Council agenda must include the name of the sponsor of legislation. Only items approved by committee or Chairperson at least two weeks before a regular Council meeting may be placed on that meeting's agenda. An exception will be made in the event of an emergency. The emergency shall be determined by the appropriate committee Chairperson or by the President of the Council.”



            It is important to note that the sole reason Mr. Liccardi gave in support of this action was because Ordinance 91 had not been approved by the committee or Chairperson at least two weeks before the regular Council meeting.  Later, Councilman Gordon asked for clarification as to the legality and appropriateness of Council President Wiltshire’s move.  At this time, Corporation Counsel Ian Silverman clarified with Mr. Liccardi that the sole reason Ordinance 91 was pulled was because it had not aged for two weeks.  Council President Wiltshire was then presented with the fact that there were two other items on that evenings agenda which fell into this category.  Both Resolution # 61 and # 62 failed to be approved at least two weeks before the Council Meeting.



            Council President Wiltshire, when you were asked to provide an explanation for this disparate treatment of the legislation you deferred to Council President Pro Tempore Zalewski. At that point, Councilman Zalewski offered a misrepresentation of Charter Section 28 which clearly states:



            “Special meetings of the City Council shall be called by the City Clerk on the written request of the Mayor, the President of the City Council, or any two Council members, including the Chair of the standing or special committee of the Council having jurisdiction over the subject matter of the workshop. The request shall state the purpose or purposes for which the meeting is called. A written notice, giving the purpose or purposes and the time and place of the special meeting, shall be served under the direction of the City Clerk, personally or by mail, on each member of the Council at least 24 hours before the time of the meeting. Due public notice must be given, including at least eight hours' notice to the news media. Only matters pertaining to the purpose or purposes of the meeting, as set forth in the notice thereof, shall be considered at any such meeting.”



            Councilman Zalewski used his reading of this section to support Council President Wiltshire’s decision to pull Ordinance 91.  Councilman Zalewski attempted to argue that only one piece of legislation may be considered at any special meeting.  Therefore, under Councilman Zalewski’s logic we would need to have a special meeting for each piece of legislation the Council sought to act on.  This reasoning defies the clear language of the Charter which refers to the purposes (plural) of the special meeting and past practice.  This year alone we have had three Special Finance meetings (February 5, June 4 and June 25) in which the agenda for such Special meeting included multiple pieces of legislation.  If your logic is correct Councilman Zalewski, is the legislation passed at these meetings not valid?



            It is particularly ironic, Council President Wiltshire, that you would use the veil of timeliness to prevent legislation you do not wish to take a position on from appearing on the agenda in light of the fact that just two weeks before, you presented legislation dealing with solar energy, which you support, to your fellow council members for the first time at 6:00 pm for a 6:00 pm Finance Committee Meeting.  As elected officials and leaders of this City we have a duty and obligation to enforce all the laws, rules and regulations, not just when it is convenient to your position.  To do anything else is not to do the job the people of the City elected you to do.



            In retrospect perhaps it was better that the Council did not act on Ordinance 91 at the September 3 Council meeting.  If you or other Council members had questions or concerns that you needed to have answered, the Ordinance could have been tabled.  But to pervert the governing documents of our City, the Charter and the Code, is irresponsible. Being a leader means making tough decisions and not pleasing everyone.  Your distortion of the City Charter rules and your failure to control the Council meeting on September 3, 2015 was, and continues to be, troubling.



            In my time as Mayor I have held my tongue perhaps more than I should have, but as I approach the end of my term I feel compelled to speak out about leadership. As a Trojan, as someone who loves this City and as someone who will soon revert back to the role of private citizen I only hope the person who sits in my chair come January 1 is the type of leader our city needs for these serious times.



Sincerely,



Louis A. Rosamilia

Mayor, City of Troy





Cc:       All City Council Members

            Peter Ryan, Deputy Mayor

            Ian Silverman, Corporation Counsel