Today's Finger Lakes Times article (2/19/08) titled "Smith Rejected Grant On Her Own" documents yet another chapter in the demise of open, representative government in Seneca Falls.
In the article Mayor Diana Smith weaves an unconvincing smoke screen around her latest actions in conducting Village business. The article reports that Smith claims she "had the authority and a Board consensus had been reached in discussions over several years" to reject the State EPF Visitor Center grant when she sent her letter several days before a Board vote on the issue.
Statements made by Third Ward Trustee Petroccia and Second Ward Trustee Campese also show a lack of understanding of the basic principles of open government. They say they have no problem with Smith sending off her letter before the vote took place, as they agree with the decision, and they have been talking about this for some time. In other words, public discussions and official votes are not particularly important to them.
It may come as a shock to Diana Smith, Tony Petroccia, and Tut Campese, but chatting about a village issue and agreeing "by consensus" that a certain course of action might be good is not at all the same as bringing an issue to the floor at an open public meeting for discussion, having that discussion, bringing forth a formal resolution, getting a second to the resolution, then recording your vote and approving (or not approving) the resolution.
Official Village business is not conducted "by consensus" "over several years." These three Board members should be able to specify at exactly which open public meetings over several years they discussed rejecting the grant. I have attended almost every regular Village Board meeting for years and have never heard this specific discussion by these or any other current or former Board members. If not at any open Village Board meeting, perhaps this "consensus" was reached at a coffee shop, at someone's home, by telephone or email, or even at the annual Village Christmas party at the Rec Center? Apparently, Trustee Ikewood was not included in these discussions?
The questions Mayor Smith should answer are:
She has stated to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation that the Village wants to apply for future grant funds for an improved Heritage Area Visitor Center relocated at the Seneca Museum building. She states to OPRHP that the $250,000 grant that was awarded is not acceptable because the Seneca Knit Development Corporation should not be required to be named as a liable guarantor for the grant.
But no matter what the mayor or SKDC may feel about this, it is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Fund that any entity with an ownership interest in the facility, such as the landlord, sign the grant agreement. Dumping this grant and then asking for a new grant will do nothing to change this requirement that SKDC - the building owner - be named a liable partner! The factor that her proposal is not changing is that the move still requires that the building owner must be a guarantor for the grant.
Therefore, Diana Smith threw away the cash we had "in hand," in hopes of getting the same agency to award other possible cash in the future, when the same rules will apply to any future grant - which we may or may not be awarded.
Competition for these grants is fierce. More and more municipalities and not-for-profits are submitting applications each year and the available money is getting tighter and tighter. There is no guarantee that any application, especially one from an applicant who has rejected a previous award, will be funded.
As the saying goes, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
In the article Mayor Diana Smith weaves an unconvincing smoke screen around her latest actions in conducting Village business. The article reports that Smith claims she "had the authority and a Board consensus had been reached in discussions over several years" to reject the State EPF Visitor Center grant when she sent her letter several days before a Board vote on the issue.
Statements made by Third Ward Trustee Petroccia and Second Ward Trustee Campese also show a lack of understanding of the basic principles of open government. They say they have no problem with Smith sending off her letter before the vote took place, as they agree with the decision, and they have been talking about this for some time. In other words, public discussions and official votes are not particularly important to them.
It may come as a shock to Diana Smith, Tony Petroccia, and Tut Campese, but chatting about a village issue and agreeing "by consensus" that a certain course of action might be good is not at all the same as bringing an issue to the floor at an open public meeting for discussion, having that discussion, bringing forth a formal resolution, getting a second to the resolution, then recording your vote and approving (or not approving) the resolution.
Official Village business is not conducted "by consensus" "over several years." These three Board members should be able to specify at exactly which open public meetings over several years they discussed rejecting the grant. I have attended almost every regular Village Board meeting for years and have never heard this specific discussion by these or any other current or former Board members. If not at any open Village Board meeting, perhaps this "consensus" was reached at a coffee shop, at someone's home, by telephone or email, or even at the annual Village Christmas party at the Rec Center? Apparently, Trustee Ikewood was not included in these discussions?
The questions Mayor Smith should answer are:
- What was the hurry in sending out your letter rejecting the grant on behalf of the Village ("our decision"), just four days before the Board meeting when a decision could be officially made?
- Why didn't you discuss your concerns about the State's requirements for Seneca Knit Development Corporation at the meeting, since it was the reason you stated in your letter for rejecting the grant?
- Why didn't you obtain an opinion from the Village Attorney, or even from the NYS Department of State, regarding whether you could unilaterally reject a grant that was authorized by Board resolution? (What is done by resolution can only be undone by resolution...)
She has stated to the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation that the Village wants to apply for future grant funds for an improved Heritage Area Visitor Center relocated at the Seneca Museum building. She states to OPRHP that the $250,000 grant that was awarded is not acceptable because the Seneca Knit Development Corporation should not be required to be named as a liable guarantor for the grant.
But no matter what the mayor or SKDC may feel about this, it is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Fund that any entity with an ownership interest in the facility, such as the landlord, sign the grant agreement. Dumping this grant and then asking for a new grant will do nothing to change this requirement that SKDC - the building owner - be named a liable partner! The factor that her proposal is not changing is that the move still requires that the building owner must be a guarantor for the grant.
Therefore, Diana Smith threw away the cash we had "in hand," in hopes of getting the same agency to award other possible cash in the future, when the same rules will apply to any future grant - which we may or may not be awarded.
Competition for these grants is fierce. More and more municipalities and not-for-profits are submitting applications each year and the available money is getting tighter and tighter. There is no guarantee that any application, especially one from an applicant who has rejected a previous award, will be funded.
As the saying goes, "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
