Is representative government disappearing in Seneca Falls?
The clickable image above is a letter, dated February 7th, that Mayor Diana Smith sent by fax on Friday, February 8th to Mr. Kevin Burns, Chief of Grants for the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. This letter officially declines the $250,000 Heritage Area Visitor Center grant the Village was awarded to refurbish exhibits. It declines the grant on behalf of the Village of Seneca Falls. As the official declination of the grant this letter does so unequivocally, implying that this was a decision made by the full Board of Trustees (Mayor Smith calls it "our decision"). It's important to note that such decisions cannot legally be made unilaterally by the Mayor.
The Mayor's announcement as reported in the Finger Lakes Times on Sunday, February 10th was that she was "recommending" that the Board refuse the grant; that this would be a topic for discussion at the February 11th regular Board meeting; that the reasons for Mayor Smith's "recommendation" centered on her dissatisfaction that the grant held "too many strings" related to the requirement that the grant be used solely for refurbishing the exhibits and could not be used for programming or visitor services. She wanted the Board to vote to approve refusal of the grant at Monday's Board meeting.
Obviously, the February 11th Village Board "discussion" and vote on Mayor Smith's "recommendation" was a sham, as evidenced by the existence of Smith's February 7th letter.
One Board member, First Ward Trustee Ikewood, stated at the February 11th meeting that he had not seen the resolution before then; that the meeting packet he received on February 8th did not include the resolution or any mention of Mayor Smith's recommendation. None of the other Board members indicated whether they had or had not seen the resolution or knew about it before that evening. Apparently, there was no prior special meeting authorizing the Mayor's letter. If there had been, why bother announcing a recommendation and a resolution at the regular meeting?
Reading Mayor Smith's letter, it is interesting to note that she does not mention the issue of using the money only for exhibits instead of programming as the reason for the Village's rejection of the grant. In fact, Smith writes in her letter that the Village had adapted its project scope to meet the State's terms. Rather, her letter specifically states that the requirement by the State that Seneca Knit Development Corporation (SKDC) be included as a liable partner in the grant is "the straw that will break the back of our project." Why would this be a deal breaker? Why wasn't this "straw that will break the back of our project" mentioned and discussed at the Board meeting?
After Trustee Ikewood asked if the need for presenting a "pre-filed" resolution to reject the grant had been discussed with the Village Attorney Mayor Smith stated it had not. Who, then, are the attorneys Smith refers to in her letter as having been working on language to satisfy the State's requirements? In matters of applying for grants, accepting awarded grants, and signing grant contracts, a mayor can only be authorized by the full Board to take action. Mayors cannot act on their own to sign contracts, or reject contracts. Why wasn't the Village Attorney consulted on this matter?
Smith's letter is cc'd to Senator Nozzolio and Nancy Mangano of Seneca Knit Development Corporation. It was not cc'd to the other members of the Village Board, or to the Village Attorney, or to the Seneca Falls Heritage Area Commission. I have seen a copy of a drafted Memorandum of Agreement that would potentially be executed between the Village and Seneca Knit Development Corporation for the transfer of the operation of the Visitor Center to the Corporation. The MOA does not mention the Seneca Falls Historical Society, but it does mention that the Village will pay SKDC $50,000 annually, plus an annual 3% increase, for operational costs.
Mayor Smith refers in her letter to having "secured a substantial amount of additional funding" to match the grant. I believe she is making reference to a $50,000 "promise" from Senator Nozzolio for a future member item on the condition that the Visitor Center be moved to the Seneca Museum building. But was that money, potentially being secured by Senator Nozzolio, meant to match the grant, or to pay Seneca Knit Development Corporation?
The Village did have just over $50,000 in a Capital Reserve Fund for the Visitor Center Improvements. In 2003 then-Trustee Smith roundly criticized her predecessor for not annually depositing money in that Reserve Fund to match the grant. In 2005, however, Mayor Smith stated at a meeting of the Heritage Area Commission that $25,000 that was approved in that year's budget for deposit in that Capital Reserve Fund would not be deposited. She stated that it was her decision to deposit that money instead in the General Fund Surplus. A few weeks later Mayor Smith also offered to return a $2,300 donation toward the match for the Visitor Center grant from the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Foundation. How can Diana Smith explain her flip-flopping over committing to match the grant, and how can she justify her unilateral actions associated with funding the project?
What other Village business has been conducted this way? Have other decisions besides this grant refusal been made outside of the public's view and without the other elected Board members?
Mayor Smith claimed at the January 27th candidate forum for the Democratic endorsement for mayor that her administration was committed to open government and transparency. But how do her actions in the rejection of this grant square with that assertion? How does making official decisions outside of Board meetings meet any criteria necessary for proper, legal conduct of Village business? If Diana Smith is committed to open, transparent government, why would she take the step of sending an official rejection of a state grant BEFORE having first discussed it at an open public meeting with the other four elected representatives and allowing those Board members to vote on it? Why would she also misrepresent the official actions of the Village Board to the State of New York?
Village residents elect their Ward representatives with the assumption that they will be equal participants in the governing process. They assume that information will be equally shared among all Board members, and that each decision will be made after the full Board discusses and votes and the public has the opportunity to observe the decision-making process and participate when appropriate.
The First Ward Trustee was the only Board member to ask questions about the process and to request that more information be provided before a formal rejection of the grant was issued. As it turns out, he was tilting at windmills on this. His questions, concerns and opinions did not matter. The decision had already been made.
