city council

Earlier, in our discussion of what the city should and should not do to help deal with the potential blight of absentee landlordism and other problem properties, city resident John Roach told us to take a look at what he called the "Slum Lord" control law. Roach said that this law was proposed in 2005, then tabled, never to return again. We asked the city for this law, and the office of the clerk responded quickly and courteously, sending us a copy of the proposed law with the note that the law had "failed" at a meeting of the City Council on December 12, 2005.

We have telephone City Councilman Frank Ferrando twice, yesterday and today, left two messages and sent him an e-mail to inquire more about this law, and get his thoughts on how the city ought to handle the problem. Ferrando was president of Council when that law "failed" in 2005.

We thought some further conversation on the issue might benefit if we took a look at some excerpts from that "failed" proposal. Before we do so, let me sum up what I found in the law: This law does not seem aimed at controlling properties in decline due to absentee landlordism, otherwise known as slum lord properties, as has been suggested by John Roach. Rather, it seems to concern properties that are frequently cited for loud noise and drunken reveling.

That being said, let's first look at the reasons outlined in the 2005 proposal for instituting such a public nuisance control law:

The City Council, after public hearings, finds that there is an increasing use of real property within the City of Batavia for the purpose of flagrant violation of the penal and alcohol, beverage control laws as well as the codes of the City of Batavia relating to continued violations of the law.

The City Council finds that this situation seriously interferes with the interest of the public in the areas of quality of neighborhood life and environment; diminution of property values; safety of the public upon the streets and sidewalks; and increasing costs of law enforcement as a result of these illegal activities.

The City Council, therefore, finds it in the public interest to authorize and empower the appropriate city officials to impose sanctions and penalties for such public nuisances as an additional and appropriate method of law enforcement in response to the apparent proliferation of these public nuisances without prejudice to the use of any other procedures and remedies available under any other law.

Making sense of the legalese that follows is an arduous task. But this much we've figured out. This law gives city officials the right to act against "public nuisance" properties. Quaified as "public nuisance" properties are those that violated specific statutes—typically on two, three or four occasions—of either the state penal code, the alcohol beverage control law or city code (dealing with alcoholic beverages and noise).

Importantly, there are no details regarding problem properties that are not "kept up"—where the grass is waist high and the lawn is littered with trash, for example. That is, this law treats only those properties which are drunken and/or noisy.

So what happens to these properties if they are found in violation?

In addition to the enforcement procedures established elsewhere, the City Manager, or his designee, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, shall be authorized to:

A. Order the discontinuance of such activity at the building, structure or place where such public nuisance exists; and/or

B. Order the closing of said building, structure or place to the extent necessary to abate the nuisance, as prescribed below.

For more information, download a copy of the proposed law here, and be sure to check out Part One of this series, which features an interview with City Council President Charlie Mallow.

We said yesterday that we'd be working on a series of posts related to neighborhood improvement issues. For the first part of our series—not that we've yet flesh out a second part—we would like to focus on problem properties, in particular: what they are and how to deal with them. We've already sent out questions on that topic and left messages with a couple members of the City Council. We expect to hit up a couple more. Council President Charlie Mallow was kind enough to get right back to us, and we have his answers below. He's got some real insights into the issue. Check out his comments.

We're also hoping to hear from you. When does a neighboring home turn from annoyance to nuisance to real problem? How should the city handle its problem properties? When should people be left alone?

Please be sure to check back with the site in the coming days and weeks. We hope to get up many more posts on this issue, which we're sure is an important one for this community.

Answers from Charlie Mallow:

How do you define a problem property?

A problem property is one that isn’t adding to the balance of a neighborhood. It’s the sore thumb of the area. Its owner is not keeping up with maintenance or its residents are causing disturbances. There also has to be some intent to avoid doing routine maintenance or create disturbances routinely. Since anyone could have health problems that keep them from being able to keep up with property maintenance from time to time.

When is it decided that a property owner has been given enough warnings? Is that threshold defined? What action then follows? What action ought to follow?

These thresholds are found in our code and state code. They are pretty ineffective; I would like to see some changes. I would like to see a property given notice and asked to respond, and then I would like to see a follow-up some time later, where a court appearance ticket is issued with a fine. We have been too easy in the past and people know how to work the system at this point.

What are the best ways to take preventive action against absentee landlordism?

Tough question. I believe you need to make it easier for people to own their own home. That’s easier said than done in our current mortgage crisis. Proper property maintenance inspections by city staff will take care of most of the problem. Our cities real issue is that we have not enforced the laws on the books for years. We have been understaffed and this has never been a priority of city government.

What is the difference between a slum lord and a lazy tenant or homeowner? Is there a difference if the outcome is the same? Ought they to be treated differently?

Right now there is no punishment for being a lazy or bad tenant. The landlord gets left holding the bag. There is another side to the problem. Most landlords are good people who care about and for their properties. There are some rotten apples but, we can’t keep beating on landlords and cast them all in a bad light. We need to find a way of punishing the right person. How? That is something we in the NIC (Neighborhood Improvement Committee) have talked about over and over again and can’t seem to find an answer for.

When should a tenant and not the landlord be held responsible for the condition of a property, if ever?

See above..

In the photo above is a neat home on Walnut Street. Batavia has many such colorful and interesting residences. We can only hope that the residents do their best to take care of them.

It's official! City Council this evening proclaimed September 22, 2008: Muckdogs Day. The 2008 NY-Penn League champions have since dispersed, many of the young players heading to St. Louis for the Cardinals post-season training camp, so that means no go on a parade for this year. But plans are already in the works to hold a victory parade when the champs return to Batavia in June.

We'll be sure to pass along more info as it becomes available.

In other City Council news...

A public hearing has been set for October 14 to discuss a local law that would abolish the city's Board of Ethics. If the action goes through, the city will in future refer all "ethics issues" to the county's Board of Ethics.

Motorists dropping off students at Batavia High School are urged not to use the central bus loop, which is for buses only, according to WBTA's Dan Fischer. There are safety concerns in allowing buses and passenger vehicles in the same area. If you are picking up or dropping off students, please use the "pick-up circle" near the band room.

City Council will meet tonight at 7:00pm in the Council chambers at City Hall.

Two children died in a house fire Sunday in the village of Fredonia. More details can be found in an article from the Jamestown Post-Journal.

In Medina, a school teacher was arrested and charged with official misconduct. Scott Ballard, 33, is accused of initiating relationships with two of his former students. More details can be found in an article from the Lockport Union-Sun & Journal.

Today's Daily News features two more reports from Matt Surtel who is on a trip to Washington D.C. with a group of area veterans led by Assemblyman Steve Hawley. Surtel steps out of the spotlight for the front page piece which includes reflections of some of the vets as they observe the National World War II Memorial. A fantastic article, worth reading in full. In another article inside the paper, Surtel thrusts himself back into the fore in a quirky tale about his first-ever trip to the mess hall. My only critique of this short and punchy piece is that we only know that Surtel is in a cafeteria, but we don't know where. Where are you, Matt?

Joanne Beck must have been a busy writer yesterday. She has three pieces featured on the front page. One is about the City Council—Council President Charlie Mallow says they are "moving forward very, very quickly." Another is about Mallow stepping down as chair of the county Democratic party, news that was featured on WBTA and The Batavian this morning. The third article by Beck—which does not feature Charlie Mallow in a prominent role—is about the quartet of Chinese students who have settled at the campus of Genesee Community College for the year. It's a fun article.

Cregg Paul, co-owner of Center Street Smokehouse, was convicted of repeated failure to file corporate tax returns for his company, Employee Leasing Network, in county court Monday. He was acquitted of four other felony charges and four misdemeanors related to the returns. Paul could face up to four years in prison or "a lesser term in local jail or probation." He will be sentenced on December 10.

We encourage you to pick up a copy of the Daily News at your nearest local newsstand. Or, better yet, subscribe at BataviaNews.com.

Batavia's City Council met for a brief session last ight in City Hall and in that time unofficially decided to nix the city's ethics board and rely on the county's one if needed—though I imagine any formal vote on it would come at the next meeting, according to WBTA's Dan Fischer. Council also decided to switch the meeting schedule so that council will only meet once a month on alternating Mondays. Council will continue to meet twice a month, but its meetings will be split. That means one Monday will be a business meeting and another will be the conference meeting.

In other news, City Council President Charlie Mallow has decided to step down as chairman of the Genesee County Democratic Party. Mallow will give up the post on September 17, though he plans to remain active in the group. He was chairman for a year and a half.

Renovation will begin today at the former St. Jerome Hospital on Bank Street, according to WBTA. United Memorial Medical Center plans to erect a 37-unit affordable senior housing structure for the site. The project is expected to disrupt traffic and parking in the vicinity.

In other news, Batavia's City Council will meet tonight at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please refer to our earlier post for more details or to download the agenda.

Batavia's City Council agenda looks relatively uncontroversial—and we can all use a break, I'm sure—for their coming meeting Monday. During the business session, the group will vote on mostly financial issues, such as the "resolution to transfer $15,700 from the contingency account to the finance department professional fees and training accounts in the 2008-2009 general fund budget for the purpose of satisfying additional fees associated with the annual audit and training." Phew. Let's take a breath there. Does anyone else get a kick out of knowing that "fees" can be satisfied?

Seriously, though, Council will also take up the recently reviewed "Council Member Rules," which were brought back to the table by Council President Charlie Mallow during the conference session of the meeting two weeks ago. Rules include:

Council members understand that the time of the professional staff is valuable and will limit discussions and phone conversation during business hours to reasonable amounts of time.

Council members shall not use their position to intimidate Staff to secure a request.

Council members agree to act through the office of the City Manager and will not directly or indirectly give order or make request of department heads or City employees...

Council members are not to give direction or to give orders to any Staff member...

And so on... Do you see a pattern here? Or should I say blatant repetition: not to give orders, not to giver orders? Every rule seems to be a variation on the theme of: leave the staff alone. In fact, it seems that the "Council Member Rules" could be that one simple rule, and perhaps the title ought to reflect that, since no other type of rules are discussed.

Council will also vote to authorize the Center for Governmental Research to conduct a consolidation for the city and town of Batavia.

Click on the link below to download the agenda for the business meeting and the details regarding the agreement with the Center for Governmental Research:

• City Council Business Meeting Agenda: September 8
• Center for Governmental Research - I
• Center for Governmental Research - II

Council will meet at 7:00pm at City Hall.

City Council President Charlie Mallow said in a Daily News article today that the consolidation of dispatch services "handicaps our police a bit." Council OK'ed consolidation Monday, and the county legislature will vote on it tonight.

[Harriet] Scopano, a senior citizen, felt safer with someone at the station around the clock. Mallow, City Council president, said the city would lose its small-town appeal and become more like his native crime-ridden Buffalo.

Now that the station at 10 W. Main St. will close for nights and weekends, both of them feel the same, they said.

That just doesn't sound right.

Moving the dispatchers 1.7 miles away will make Batavia like "a crime-ridden Buffalo"? That just doesn't sound right. Scopano is quoted later on in the article as saying that "we'll have to watch ourselves, especially in the parking lot." It doesn't seem reasonable to suggest that just because dispatchers will no longer occupy the facility at all hours that the parking lot outside of headquarters will become more of a risk for violent crime. Heck, there's hardly any violent crime in Batavia as it is. It's one of the reasons why Batavia is a better place to live than, say, Buffalo. Do we really believe that criminals will now congregate outside the police station?

Police Chief Randy Baker makes a good point.

"For citizens, you're not going to see much of a change. We locked the doors after hours anyway for dispatchers to let (visitors) in," he said. "If someone is in immediate danger, they can go to the lobby at the jail. That's a manned area. They've always had that."

Don't people just call 911 when they're in trouble? Who goes to the police station? We call the police. They come to us if we're in trouble. That's why they've got the fast cars with the loud sirens and the bright flashing lights.

City officers are certain to shift their perspectives to go along with the changes, Mallow said. "They're going to do what they need to do to protect the citizens," he said.

Exactly. Especially since what they do won't change. Nor will what the dispatchers do change. The only thing that will change, really, is that when you call the police for an emergency, they'll pick up your phone a mile and a half away from where they did it before.

WBTA's Dan Fischer picked up some great audio of last night's concluding debate about the mall sign—which was approved for purchase by a vote of 6-2. He has posted the views of two City Council members who held opposing views on the mall: Rosemary Christian and Charlie Mallow.

In other news, the former highway superintendent of the Erie County town of Marilla, David Pierce, told a judge yesterday that "alcoholism and greed" made him break the law. Pierce was sentenced to seven months in jail for using town employees to work on his property, doing such things as building a fishing and swimming pond.

After weeks of asserting that he would not recuse himself from a City Council vote to purchase a sign for the mall, Councilman Bob Bialkowski abstained when it came his turn tonight, doing what everyone had been saying was the right thing to do and nullifying any purpose to convene the city's ethics board. So ends that debate.

That vote, by the way, won with a clear majority, and the city will purchase a new sign advertising the mall, not to exceed $20,000. Council members Charlie Mallow and Marianne Clattenburg voted against the purchase.

"I'm really frustrated with this whole situation," said Clattenburg. "I'm ambivalent on the sign. I was for it when we voted for the budget, but I don't know now that this has become so hostile."

After the vote, Bialkowski said that in the end he abstained so as not to hold up procedure.

"Everything else aside," said Councilman Frank Ferrando, "We took the sign down. We should put it back up."

If I may be allowed a moment to digress... Sometimes, folks, things just work out. Even in such municipal farces as these, what we all know ought to happen happens despite the rancor, despite the bitter clash of personalities and despite the obstinacy of otherwise good people who inexplicably act contrary to common sense. God bless America.

Council was also supposed to appoint a five member board of ethcis, but that was postponed owing to the efforts of Rosemary Christian who said she "didn't even know" the city was "looking for an ethics committee."

"My concern," said Councilman Tim Buckley, "is that nobody here can explain to me what exactly the ethcis board does. It might be spelled out, but there has been no action. I'd like to spend some more time on this and make sure it's done right. I'd like to define their job a little more, instead of just saying that these are members of a board that do nothing."

Council members Mallow and Clattenburg sounded the sole votes against postponing the appointments. Clattenburg said that such a move "means we're rejecting these members."

Mostly optimistic talk about Batavia's financial upswing at tonight's council meeting took on some shades of gray when the topic turned to the fate of the city's ambulance corps.

City Manager Jason Molino warned council that "we have to get a financially stable point" before the city looks forward to reacquiring services that have been cut down to keep a sinking ship from going under altogether.

"We talked about a surplus," he said, "but when you look at the cash perspective, there is no surplus. ... We're going to have to take another month to look at this [amublance service] and decide if you want to continue to supply this service or not. It's extremely expensive, and we cannot maintain it."

Little specifics were given—we will fill in more details tomorrow—but it was understood that the council would get together sometime in the coming weeks to consider whether to continue paying for its ambulance service.

Council President Charlie Mallow said that the city received a letter from the fire and ambulance union about the poor state of its emergency vehicles. We will get that letter.

"The ambulances are in disrepair," said Mallow. "There has been a lot of pressure to abandon this."

Batavia's City Council will meet tonight at 7:00pm at City Hall, according to WBTA. The meeting, originally scheduled for August 11, was postponed twice. Council is expected to vote on whether to fund the replacement of a sign for the mall. Also meeting tonight at 7:00pm is the Board of Education. They will assemble at the administration building on Washington Avenue.

No cause has yet been determined in the fire at Willow Industries at 34 Clinton Street that erupted Friday night. The fire was brought under control shortly after midnight. Damage was confined to the warehouse, and some of the materials inside are reported destroyed by fire. Steve Ognibene was driving by that evening when he spotted the fire trucks. He put together this video footage of the scene, which was sent to the Batavian over the weekend:

    This is submitted to address the issue of representational fairness in regard to the election of at-large city council members. Currently, if a sitting council member who was elected to represent an individual ward runs for an at-large seat and wins, someone is then appointed to the vacated ward seat from the winning party. Since this appointment is voted on by the city council instead of the ward's voters, it dilutes the power of each ward resident's vote. By replacing the member who initially won the ward's vote with a candidate who only needs approval from elected officials outside of the ward, this effectively means that the ward's representation is then decided by the whole city instead of  by the wards' voters. Additionally, in a ward election, party affiliation doesn't mean as much as it does in other elections, so limiting the council's choices to just one party even further deprives the ward voters of choice.

     I would propose that a sitting member should be required to serve notice of their intention to resign their current seat to run for an at-large seat so that their ward can make the decision on who represents them instead of leaving it to the city council members to decide for the ward. This resignation would take effect at the end of the current council year. In the interest of fairness, the announcement should be required to be made sufficiently in advance of the election so as to provide interested candidates the time necessary to file and gather sufficient petition signatures.   By allowing sitting members to make a horizontal move to an at-large seat, it also reduces the pool of interested candidates for the ward seat, thereby additionally depriving ward voters of further choice in their representation.

  This proposal is made in regard to fairness and outside of any partisan considerations.

Consolidation between the Genesee County Sheriff's Office and the City of Batavia Police should go through by the end of the month, according to the Daily News. The county legislature approved a $76,000 capital project at its meeting last night—$9,926 of that will be paid by the county, the rest covered by a state grant.

In an article by Joanne Beck, City Council President Charlie Mallow says that a question initially posed for the city's board of ethics—does Councilman Bob Bialkowski have a conflict of interest regarding votes on the mall—will now be taken up by the county board of ethics. City Attorney George Van Nest "submitted the matter to the county's board within the last week, Mallow said. However, the county's Clerk of the Legislature Carolyn Pratt says that the county board cannot act "on any issue from a municipality that has already established an ethics board," and the city has its own board. I called Van Nest to ask him if this means that the county board will not hear the matter, but he declined to comment. It was the most simple question I thought to ask, and really beats at the heart of the whole article. If the county board of ethics can't meet to discuss this: first, why is it news? And second, why would Van Nest ask them to meet?

For more fun and informative articles just like these, be sure to get out and pick up your very own copy of the Daily News. Or, better yet, subcribe at BataviaNews.com.

In big, bold, stop-the-press-size font the headline at the top of today's front page of the Daily News reads: Mall merchants vote to sue city. Sure, that may be accurate, but that "vote" came about two months ago. Hardly worth the quart of ink used to splash it across today's paper as if it were commandment number eleven... just announced. That being said, reporter Joanne Beck does a fine job in the article of clearing up a few ambiguities about the raging debate over the mall, its sign, its merchants and the city's fed-uppness with all of the above—all the while raising a few more questions in the process.

Beck spoke with Mitchell Chess, Charlie Mallow and Jason Molino in the article. Chess and Mallow have made frequent contributions to The Batavian on the topic this week, and most of what they say to Beck was already reported first-hand by them here. As for the city manager, Beck must have the sweet touch, because I can't get him to return any of my messages—I've left several with him and his office this week.

Here are a few highlights from her conversations:

"The merchants have sued twice before and they won," (said Chess). "We're going to win. We decided to sue after the last meeting. We're trying to take the high ground here. Every time we try to do that, (City Council President Charlie Mallow) comes in with ... broad, general statements without any basis. We've told our attorey it has to be filed before the next council meeting."

Mallow is then quoted later in the article as saying that "he felt the group was going to sue all along," and he no longer plans to shop at the mall. "Anyone who sues the city is suing me personally, and suing my neighbor and my kids," he tells Beck.

As for the controversy over the mall sign, Chess tells Beck that, in fact, the mall did own the original sign, and the city had promised—though never in writing—to replace it. Further, he says, the city already set aside $20,000 in the budget to do just that.

Given that fact, Chess wants to know why the purchase has now become an issue for council's vote.

City Manager Jason Molino said the matter would not have had to go to vote. But a request made by Councilman Bob Bialkowski for a mall update during last month's meeting seemed to resurrect the sign as a question instead of a done deal.

Those who have kept with our coverage of this issue know that we're pretty clear in thinking that Bialkowski should recuse himself from the upcoming vote on that sign, and yesterday's editorial in the Daily News said the same. Nevertheless, I can't understand the logic here. Why does Bialkowski's request for a "mall update" equate to a resurrection of "the sign as a question instead of a done deal"? Maybe the problem is simply in the wording, I don't know.

Beck then tackles the claim made in one of Mallow's letters to the editor that said the mall merchants "want the taxpayers to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the mall and then for the city to sell it to them for $1." Chess counters that, claiming that the idea didn't originated with the mall merchants, rather it was raised by the city in negotiations.

Molino couldn't confirm or deny that, he said, since the conversation was likely a few years ago.

Who can confirm or deny it? We're trying to find out.

Today's Opinion page in the Daily News has what you might call a running theme going. Everyone's favorite subject these days: the mall. Count them: two letters to the editor on the topic, plus the unequivocally titled editorial: End the mall brawl: Council should focus on solution, not insults.

Says the Daily News (quite accurately):

Mr. (Bob) Bialkowski should not vote on mall issues. The City Charter says Council members should not vote on issues where they might benefit "directly or indirectly." If nothing else, there is an appearance of conflict of interest.

Does that take Council off the hook for city obligations to the mall? No way. Every member of Council ought to be trying his or her utmost to resolve this issue without going to court. Neglecting a mall that is connected to the City Centre is foolish. Visitors see the City Centre/mall as one entity .... neglect in one area reflects on the entirety. The concourse ought to look as good as City Hall. All Council members should agree on that, instead of trading insults.

Well said. And all of those imperative ought to's ought not to be overlooked.

As for the two letters...

Much of what is included in the letter by Mitchell Chess can be found in his post to The Batavian yesterday. Not included in that post are Mitchell's comments about City Manager Jason Molino. He writes:

We have ... been continuously misled by the city. We have meetings and nothing ever happens. As a result of our frustrations with Mr. Molino, we requested the city to appoint an independent negotiator.

I would only ask that Mitchell provide us with some specific instances of how the mall was misled by the city, and what is the subject of negotiations.

In the other letter, Daniel Jones has at Bob Bialkowski, something we've heard quite a bit of already, and whether or not more of it is needed, just or desired, we will leave up to you. A suggestion for Daniel: try to steer clear of the discordancy. Calling Bialkowski out for his hyperbole, Daniel throws around more than his fair share, describing Bialkowski in such terms as: "completely ignoring any sense of ethics," "completely tarnished the image of the Genesee County Airport," "dangerous to city residents," "putting the city in serious financial and legal jeopardy," "his tirades," "complete disregard for ethics" (again), "truly embarassing for the city of Batavia."

In a letter to the editor in today's Daily News, City Councilman Bob Bialkowski urges Council President Charlie Mallow to resign. He writes:

Mr. Mallow has been demonstrating some unusual behavior lately. At our last meeting he would not allow any new business to be brought to the floor. He blocked several of us by asking for a motion to adjourn, moving to adjourn and then adjourning the meeting. He executed the entire sequence by himself, which violates all rules of conducting a meeting. Mr. Mallow should resign as council president because he has failed miserably as a leader. A good leader does not use the press to criticize and ridicule memers of his assembly.

The Batavian has requested a response from Mallow. We've included it in full below.

The skirmish between Mallow and Bialkowski has been going on for weeks now, reaching a fevered pitch at the last meeting of the City Council when Mallow asked for Bialkowski to recuse him from voting on the purchase of a sign by the city for the mall. Within days of the meeting, the city attorney, George Van Nest, drafted a letter requesting the city's Board of Ethics to convene and consider whether a "councilman" exhibited a conflict of interest in voting on the purchase of a mall sign as his "wife" is manager of the mall. Van Nest never returned calls made by The Batavian.

Mallow, in his turn, authored a pair of letters to the editor that appeared in the August 2 and August 5 issues of the Daily News. In the first, Mallow writes:

Mr. Bialkowski and Bill Cox are new on Council, very new. They believe they can coerce the rest of the Council into bending to the wishes of the (Mall Merchants Association). They have also shown me deep seated hatred for our city manager and city attorney. I'm not prepared to allow him to take political retribution out on our city staff. Enough is Enough!

Obviously, both Mallow and Bialkowski—despite the latter's own claims that he "detests conducting the business of the citizens by writing letters to the editor"—are fond of hyperbole. While the mall merchants have threatened the city with litigation, there is no "pending case" with the group, as Mallow asserts in his first letter. Van Nest said so at the last meeting of the council. And while Bialkowski may not be in a direct conflict of interest regarding the vote for the city to purchase the sign for the mall, his wife is the manager of the mall, and he would exhibit a sense of good behavior, if nothing else, if he just gave in and recused himself.

instead, both Mallow and Bialkowski—both grandstanding, both citing his moral superiority—turn city business into vehement personal attacks. I have to feel bad for Bill Cox who got dragged into the mess just because he wanted the city to look at a potential health hazard. While I can understand the exasperation of both Mallow and Bialkowski, I just can't understand why they opt to play out this farce in these terms: this one accusing that one of despotism, that one accusing this one of hatred. Hatred!? What is this? And I don't even want to hear any of these "Well, he started it" arguments, which amount to nothing more than further propagating the feud by couching it in terms of cause and effect, action and reaction, and villifying one term to the favor of the other.

Here's Bialkowski:

Lately some of us councilmen have received e-mails from Mr. Mallow in which he is very sarcastic, calls us names and as of late has used foul and abusive language.

Here's Mallow:

As of late Mr. Cox. has ... developed a strong interest in bird droppings on the roof of the mall. So much so, that he wrote a long rambling letter to the paper about this issue and how he believes he is being treated unfairly.

Why should Cox's letter be demeaned this way? Isn't that, in fact, treating him unfairly? Why can't he voice his opinion—no matter how much others feel it may not be relevant—without being cut down by his peers?

The following is Mallow's response, in full, to Bialkowski's letter:

I don’t  give much weight to the things Bob Biakowski says. He wants to run roughshod over our city manger and attorney and expects me to stand aside while he intimidates them. Bob has an agenda that doesn’t include working for the taxpayers of this city. I am deeply embarrassed that Bob Biakowski was the first sitting city council person to have an ethics body called to discuss his actions. Bob is going about his short term on council in an unhealthily way that limits his effectiveness.  His actions have turned most of council against him and he is acting out in an unprofessional way. I have 1 ½ years left on council and I’m going to spend that time watching Bob and his friends very closely. Bob and Bill Cox are both trying to bring a little taste of Albany politics to Batavia. We are a small city and have a non partisan government lead by a city manager. I’m sorry that things are not going Bob’s way and he feels he needs to have a temper tantrum to bring light to his problems.

For more background on these issues, check out some of our earlier posts:

• Who's who on the Ethics Board...
• Mallow vs. Cox and Bialkowski...
• In other City Council news...

Batavia's Board of Ethics may have been so quiet over the past few years that you wouldn't even know they exist — Councilman Bob Bialkowski certainly didn't — but according to the Daily News, such an advisory group is still around, though hardly in full form.

This morning, city officials have listed Lewis Henning, the Rev. Raymond Kraus (whose term expired in December 2005), Jine Monachino, Durin Rogers and Holly Sharpe (who had resigned) as current board members. No terms or procedures were available.

Without Kraus and Sharpe, the board that was originally composed of six members is currently down to three — member Todd Phelps was rendered inactive at the start of 2006, since he no longer lived in the area.

The Batavian phoned Lewis Henning to find out more information about the board's procedures. Henning said that he had never sat with the board in its official advisory capacity. When he and the other members were appointed a few years back, they "met and sorted out liability" and discussed their responsibilities.

"As a board we search out the charter and relevant issues and make a decision from there, then send our decision on to the city attorney," he said.

"We have never made an opinion so far."

During the early stages in 2005 or so when the board was coming together and city officials were working out just what they were supposed to do and say and what power they had, it was decided that the board makes "a recommendation" — known as its advisory opinion — but that the decision "didn't really have any bite to it," said Henning.

He did not know when the board will meet, though he imagines it would be "probably pretty soon." Nor does he know how the city will address the issue of the three missing board members.

City Manager Jason Molino has not yet returned our calls for comment. We are hoping to find out more information about the procedure for the Board of Ethics, when it will meet and how a decision will be rendered and considered by the City Council.

Previous related posts:

• Bialkowski says he does not have a conflict of interest
• Board of Ethics asked to convene...

City Councilman Bob Bialkowski insists that he will not recuse himself  "at this time" from a vote by council to purchase a new sign for the mall, where his wife works as mall manager.

"I really can't," he said. "I have no financial interest. Our charter has said no one can recuse themselves unless they have a direct financial interest. It's in the charter. I have no interest. My wife has no financial interest."

At the council meeting on July 14, Bialkowski was asked by Council President Charlie Mallow to recuse himself from the vote as the purchase of the sign by the city would benefit the mall merchants financially and thus Bialkowski by association. Those comments were followed up by a letter sent yesterday by City Attorney George Van Nest requesting the Batavia Board of Ethics to convene regarding a conflict of interest of a certain "councilman" whose "wife is manager of the mall" regarding that very same vote.

Bialkowski spurns those claims.

He says his wife is only an "hourly employee" of the mall and stands to see no gain from the installation of a sign advertising mall shops. Further, she is not on any board and does not meet with the Mall Merchants Association, the group requesting the sign.

More than all that, he said, "we don't have a Board of Ethics, at least we didn't the last time I knew."

The Batavian called Mallow to find out more information about the Board of Ethics. We are waiting for him to return our call. We could not find a listing of the members of such a board on the city Web site. But we did find the following in the City Code:

There is hereby established a Board of Ethics consisting of six members to be appointed by the Council and who shall serve without compensation for a term of five years each, with the initial terms to be staggered so that one member shall be appointed or reappointed each year, with the exception of the fifth year when two members shall be appointed. All members shall be residents of the City of Batavia, except that no member may be an officer or employee of the City of Batavia.

The Board of Ethics shall have the powers and duties prescribed by Article 18 of the General Municipal Law and shall render advisory opinions to the officers and employees of the City of Batavia with respect to Article 18 of the General Municipal Law and the Code of Ethics contained in Article I of this chapter, under such rules and regulations as the Board may prescribe. In addition, the Board may make recommendations with respect to the drafting and adoption of the Code of Ethics or amendments thereto upon request of the Council of the City of Batavia.

We will post more information as it becomes available.

Check out our earlier post for more information and background.