Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTB Minutes 1974-10-14 TOWN OF ITHACA ADJOURNED BOARD 14EETING October 14 , 1974 At an adjourned meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , New York , held at the Town Offices at 108 East Green , Street , Ithaca , New York , on the 14th day of October , 19741 at 5200 p . m . , there were ° PRESENT * Walter Jo Schwan , Town Supervisor Andrew Wo McElwee , Councilman Noel Desch , Councilman Victor Del Rosso , Councilman Robert Na Powers , Councilman ALSO PRESENT ° James V . Buyoucos , Town Attorney Lawrence P , Fabbroni , Planning Engineer Henry We Theisen , Attorney°at°Law Beverly Livesay , 147 Snyder Hill Road Mrso Herbert Mahr , 103 Judd Falls Road Radio , TV and Press CLERK FOR JUSTICE Motion by Supervisor Schwan ; seconded by Councilman McElwee , RESOLVED , that the motion adopted at the Town Board meeting of October 8 , 1973 , authorizing a clerk for Justice Warren A . Blye at $ 25000 per session be rescinded and that a clerk for Justice Blye be authorized , said clerk to be paid at the rate of $ 2050 per hour , not to exceed 40 hours a month . Unanimously carried . PETITION FOR WARD SYSTE14 AND AN INCREASE IN TOWN COUNCILMEN FROM FOUR TO SIX Supervisor Schwan read in its entirety an opinion submitted to the Board by Town Attorney Buyoucos on this matter . After the reading of the opinion , Mro Buyoucos said he had rendered the opinion because he felt there were certain implications inherent in the two propositions taken together which at some future time might subject the Board to reproach . Mr . Buyoucos , in his opinion , concluded that there is a legal basis for the rejection by the Town Board of the petition on the two proposals . He recommended , however , that the . Town Board should adopt , on its own motion a resolution to increase the number of Councilmen from four to six ., This proposal would be submitted to the voters of the Town of Ithaca for approval or dis - approval . If approved , then the matter of the division of the Town into wards could be considered next . Supervisor Schwan suggested that the Town Board might adopt a resolution at this meeting to authorize a Special Town Election on the matter of increasing the number of councilmen from four to six . Referring to Hr o Buyoucos ' opinion , Attorney Henry Theisen said he found no inconsistencies in any of the sections of Town Law relating to this matter . He saw no reason whatsoever why the two propositions could not be submitted at the same time . He said the only thing the petition asks for is that the two propositions be sub- mited for vote and said there is no reason why any combination of votes on either proposition could not be consistently adopted . He ® 2 October 14 , 1974 said either or both of the propositions could be adopted or defeated or one could be adopted and the other defeated and that there would be no problem in any case . With respect to ward lines he said there can be four wards in the Town and still have three County Districts in the Towno The Supervisor pointed out the imbalances in districts that would result . Airs . Livesay agreed there would be some awkward situations , . but that they would not be illegal . Mr . Theisen said if the Board found the petition valid on its face , with no obvious ilo legality , then the Board had no discretion in the matter and had to proceed . Mro Theisen contended that a Special Town Election could be held at the same time as the general election ° that , in fact , such a case already existed of the two propositions being submitted together at a general election , Mr . Buyoucos asked if there had been any deter mination that the action was rights that it had simply not been con tested . Mrs . Livesay contended that unless it was specifically form bidden to hold a Special Town Election at the general election she felt there was no reason why it could not beheld at that time . Mr . Buyoucos said there is no place in the law which says that the proposi - tion must be submitted at a general election ; that the Town Board has the right to schedule a Special Town Election , a right that cannot be challenged ,* that since the Town Board has the discretion they may de � cide as a matter of policy to hold a Special Town Election . Mrso Live say noted the extra expense of having a Special Town Election , and she felt the Board ought to consider that , The sense of the Board was that the matters to be considered were of sufficient importance to the Town for years to come that they ought to be considered separately without the distraction of other matters . Motion by Councilman Desch ,* seconded by Councilman Del Rosso , RESOLVED , that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca rejects petition as filed with the Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca on October 4 , 1974 , covering ( 1 ) proposition for establishment of the ward system for the election of councilmen in the Town of Ithaca , as follows : SHALL THE WARD SYSTEM FOR THE ELECTION OF COUNCILMEN BE ESTABLISHED IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA , PURSUANT TO SECTION 81 OF TrX TOWN LAW? , and ( 2 ) proposi - tion for the increase of the number of councilmen of the Town of Ithaca from four to six , as follows : SHALL THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEN OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA BE INCREASED FROM FOUR TO SIX , . PURSUANT TO SEC- TION 81 OF THE TOWN LAW? Unanimously carried . Mrs . Herbert Mahr said she wanted it clear in the record on what legal grounds the Board was rejecting the petition . The Board said it was rejecting the petition based upon the opinion rendered by the Town Attorney . Motion by Councilman Desch ,* seconded by Supervisor Schwan , RESOLVED , that the following proposition shall be submitted at a Special Town Election . GOSHALL THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEN OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA BE INCREASED FROM FOUR TO SIX 7. B0 The Special Town Election shall be held on November 19 , 1974 ,* the hours of opening the polls shall be 12 ' o ' clock noon and the hours of closing the polls shall be 8 : 00 p . m . ,* the place or places of hold - ing the election shall be the regular polling places in all nine Town Election Districts and those districts are specified as follows : District No . 1 Tompkins County Hospital Nurses Recreation Room Trumansburg Road ® 3 October 140 1974 District No . 2 _ Vehicle Maintenance Building 150 Bostwick Road District No . 3 _ National Cash Register Company Cafeteria Danby Road District No . 4 = Riley Robb Hall Cornell University Judd Falls Road District No . 5 Cayuga Heights Fire Station 194 Pleasant Grove Road District No . 6 School Winthrop Drive District No . 7 ® Cayuga Heights School Highland Road District No . 8 ® U . S . Naval Reserve Center Community Service 1701 N . Cayuga Street all in Ithaca , New York . The Town Clerk shall give notice of such Special Town Election by the publication of a notice in the newspaper published in said Town , all as prescribed in Section 82 of the Town Law . Unanimously carried . Mrs . Livesay- noted that there is nothing to prevent another circulation of a petition with respect to the ward system or a chal � lenge in the courts on the decision of the Town Board to reject the petition . She noted again the extra cost involved in two special elections , rather than one . There was some discussion as to whether different results in the way of number of signatures might have resulted if the proposi - tions had been petitioned for separately . Mrs . Livesay said , to her knowledge , the people who signed the petitions were in favor of both propositions . There was some difference of opinion on this point . Councilman Desch questioned whether some people would have signed the petition at all had they understood all the implications of the two propositions taken together . Mr . Theisen did not thin]. it appropriate for the Town Board to decide on the merits of the proposals . He said the Town Board could cite no statute that the petition , as filed , is illegal . Mr . Buyoucos said he based his opinion on the reading of the statute and his conviction that there are implications in the two propositions , taken together , which might be unfortunate for the Town ; and that his recommendation is to handle the matter of the increase in the number of councilmen first and that if that porposition is adopted and implemented ( that is , when there are actually six council - men ) then the matter of the ward system should be taken up ; that the Town Board might on its own motion adopt a proposal for the ward sys - tem if there is enough . interest in it . Mr . Buyoucos said there is a biennial election in the Town of Ithaca in 1975 and that the voters of the Town of Ithaca are not being " disenfranchised " ( as Mr . Theisen had said in the course of the discussion ) since they have the right to bring another petition or by letter ask the Board to consider the matter of the ward system at a public meeting . -- 4 _ October 14 , . 1974 Mrs . Mahr said that the ward system is the real thrust of the proposals and that they were not interested in a six -member Board per se , but that if there should be a ward system the only practical thing was to go to a six -member Board . She said there was strong feeling among the people who signed the petition for the ward system , that almost all of the people approached signed the proposals clearly aware that there were two propositions and that they were clearly in favor of both , that there was no question about that in the mind of anyone who circulated the petition . She said she was disappointed at the Board ' s action . Motion by Supervisor Schwan ; seconded by Councilman Desch , RESOLVED , that in the Special Torn; Election scheduled to be held on November 19 , 1974 on the proposition " SHALL THE NUMBER OF COUNCILMEN OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA BE INCREASED FROM FOUR TO SIX V paper ballots be used citing the proposition to be voted upon , with two boxes thereon , one marked YES and one marked NO , one or the other to be marked with a cross (X ) by the voter . Unanimously carried . ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6000 p . m . to October 24 , 1974 at 5000 pomp ( following a scheduled meeting of the Southern Cayuga Lake Water Commission on October 23 , 1974 ) , to consider scheduling a public hearing tin an increase in the cost of the Bolton Point water supply and transmission project . �lot< Edward L . Bergen Town Clerk TO : TOWN SUPERVISOR AND MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD SUBJECT : Town Attorney ' s opinion on petitions to submit proposals pursuant to Section 81 on ( a ) the adoption of the ward system and ( b ) an increase in the number of councilmen from four to six . DATE : October 14 , 1974 1 Pursuant to Section 81 , Town Law , a petition has been filed with the Town Clerk requesting that the following two propositions be submitted to the voters at a special Town elec - tion : 1 . Shall the Ward System for the election of the Council - men be established for the Town of Ithaca ? ( This proposal is authorized by Section 85 , Town Law ) , 2 . Shall the number of Councilmen be increased from 4 to 6 ? ( This proposition is authorized by Section 87 , Town Law . ) Both propositions have been included in one petition in - stead of separate petitions for each proposition . The petitions were filed on October 4 , 1974 . Section 81 provides that a proposition shall be submitted either at a bi - ennial or a special Town election . The next biennial election will not be held until 1975 . Therefore , if there are no legal objections to the petition , as submitted , the propositions must be submitted not less than 30 nor more than 40 days subsequent to the date on which it . was filed . 1 . The first issue : Must the proposition be submitted at the general election on • November 57 The answer is that it need not be submitted at the General Election . Indeed , a careful consideration of the provisions of Article 6 of the Town Law would seem to support a holding that the propositions should be submit - ted at a special election to be held at a time other than a gener - al election . A . Section 81 commands specifically that a proposal shall be submitted either at a biennial election or a special elec tion . It does not state that a special election may be held at the same time as a general election although the Legislature could easily have said this . There are no court decisions to guide us . The only authority is the statute enacted by the Legislature , Section 81 , Town Law . There is no .statute which provides that ^' a 2 - Town special election may be held at the same time as a general election . Consequently , we can say , unqualifiedly , that the Town Board may schedule a special election on a date other than the general election . 2 . The second issue follows directly from the first issue . Assuming that I advised you , based on one of two mutually contra - dictory opinions by the Attorney General , that you may hold the special election at the same time as a general election , should you , as a matter of policy , do so ? You should take the following into account . A . The history of the legislation clearly shows that it was the intention of the State Legislature to divorce local elections from general elections . Regular Town elections , known as biennial elections , must be held only in odd -numbered years ( Section 80 , Town Law ) . - B . The two propositions are of the greatest import - ance to the future of the Town government . Their adoption will affect the government of the Town of Ithaca for many years . Should these two propositions , one of which ( the " ward " proposal ) may be controversial and needs study and reflection , be submitted in the often charged atmosphere of a general election when ( i ) the elec - torate is bombarded with competing claims of numerous candidates for Governor , United States Senator , Congressional representatives , State assemblymen , State Senator , State propositions ? We don ' t hold school board elections at the same time as general elections . Are these two extremely important proposals any less special or less deserving of special consideration than the important choices made at a school board election ? Do considerations of political partisanship affect the choices of the voter more at a general election rather than at a special election ? If you permit these particular proposall to be submitted to the voters at a special election held at the same time as a general election , how will you 3 - deny a similar request on other proposals in the future and how would this affect the statutory scheme which I described above ? I make no recommendations . The policy issue is for your determi - nation , not mine . 3 . The third issue : Was it proper ( a ) to place both proposals on the same petition and ( b ) to submit both proposals to the voters -at the same time ? A . There is no case directly in point which has specifically discussed this issue . However , it does not require a court decision to hold that mutually inconsistent proposals should not be circulated for a voter ' s signature on the same petition . Even if the matters can be submitted by the Town Board as separate proposals on separate ballots , this does not cure the fundamental weakness which I have previously discussed with you . If the proposals had been submitted separately would sufficient voters have signed both petitions ? This determination should not be left to surmise or assumptions . B . While the Office of the State Comptroller issued an opinion in 1957 ( 13 Op . St . Compt . 223 ) that it was permissible to submit both proposals at the same time , I do not believe that the Comptroller ' s construction of the statutory provisions is well reasoned or that it is faithful to the intention of the State Legislature . Section 85 provides that if the proposition has been adopted to establish wards , the Town shall be divided into four wards unless a proposition shall have been adopted to increase the number of councilmen to six , in which case the Town shall be divided into six wards . Section 87 provides that the number of councilmen may be increased from four to six , but this may not be done if the town has adopted a ward system . Thus , if the proposition to establish 4 wards is adopted and the proposition to increase the number of town councilmen is defeated , the number of town councilmen could never be increased from four to six without an amendment to the law by the State Legislature . To avoid this unfortunate result , therefore , it is my opinion that only the proposition to increase the number of councilmen should be submitted first at a special election and should be fully implemented before the proposition to establish wards is submitted . A further reason for the prior submission of the proposal to increase the number of councilmen to six is that if both proposals are submitted simultaneously , the electorate would not know whether they were voting to create four or six wards because they could not know whether the proposition to increase the number of councilmen would be adopted . ' This was a highly important consideration to the State Legislature . Just how important it was to the Legislature is obvious from the fact that once the Town of Ithaca establishes the ward system , it may never increase the number of councilmen from four to six . But aside from the limitations of the statute , experience has shown that it is often very difficult to establish wards or districts which are legally proper under present day constitutional require - ments and which are also fair and workable . For the foregoing reasons the proposition to increase the number of councilmen must be determined before the proposition to create wards and not the other way around . In addition , Sections 85 and 87 contain inconsistent pro - visions with respect to the length of terms and the process of electing Town Councilmen . At present , there are four councilmen . They are elected for a term of four years and only two are elected every two years . Under Section 87 , if the number of councilmen is increased from four to six , the terms of each councilman will continue to be four years . Similarly , elections are staggered so that only three councilmen are elected every two - years . I J , 5 - On the other hand , if the other proposition is adopted and the Town is divided into wards ( say six ) , each ward will be represented by one councilman . He will not be elected at large as councilmen are now elected . Instead , each ward will elect one councilman . However , his term would be for two years instead of four years . Moreover , there will be no staggered elections . Instead , the entire Board , six councilmen , would be required to run for office at the same time - - every two years . This prevent staggered elections which have the advantage of preserving experi ence and continuity on a board since only one -half of the council men are elected at one time . This is not possible under Section 85 since all six councilmen must be elected at the same time , every two years . If the Legislature had intended to authorize the simul - taneous adoption of both propositions , would it have made the two sections inconsistent with each other ? Thus , there are good reasons for holding that both propo - sitions should not have been circulated on the same petition and that the proposition to increase councilmen under Section 87 should be adopted first . This is what the Legislature intended and this is the only way that the voters will know ahead of time the effect of their vote . CONCLUSION 1 . There is a legal basis for the rejection by the Town Board of both proposals . 29 The Town Board should adopt , on its own motion , a resolution to increase the number of councilmen from four ( 4 ) to six ( 6 ) • This proposal would be submitted to the voters of the Town of Ithaca for approval or disapproval . If approved , then the matter of the division of the Town into wards should be considered next .