RES PUBLICA - Gloversville, NY Edition

After reading Al Lebo once again lambasting me for the Golden Garbage truck issue of 2004, I decided that since 5 years of the 7 to 10 year lifespan of the trucks had passed, it might be a good idea to see how well they're holding up.

Before getting to that point, it is important to review the circumstances. In 2004, both of the city's garbage trucks were positively ancient as trucks of this type go. One was 13 years old. The other 15 years old. Both trucks had a lifespan of no more than 10 years and were well beyond that point. They were frequently broken, and it was becoming increasingly difficult to find spare parts. They were essentially not road worthy. The details can be found in the following report done by me in 2004:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dwrkfd7_27d7g8dvhp

In true open government fashion, I published that study on the former http://www.backdash.com/ website, as well as passed out copies to all of my fellow council members and a few interested citizens of our city.

The only person to come up with a competing plan was Shirley Savage, for which I give her credit. Still, her plan was to buy used low budget Sterling brand garbage trucks from Canada, of all places, from a dealership a quarter of the way around Lake Erie, past Buffalo.

Not a good plan.

Ron Ellis, DPW Director at the time, wanted to get two top of the line trucks with the intention of adding extra thick walls and floor to the garbage box so that the box itself might even outlast the truck (could be transplanted onto a new chassis when needed).

This was all a great plan except for one tiny little oversight that no one appeared to notice, and was only recently discovered by Bob Abel when reviewing the purchase specs for the vehicles we bought.

It seems that Ron Ellis spec'd the garbage boxes with 11 guage steel instead of 7 guage. It would seem to make sense that 11 is a higher number and therefore it should be thicker, more durable.
Nope

The link will show you that metal guage runs inverse such that the higher number is the lower thickness. Ron's 11 made for about a 1/16" thinner wall thickness than an otherwise similarly spec'd state contract garbage truck.

http://www.offroaders.com/tech/steel-gauge-thickness.htm

Oh, Lord.

Basically, we wasted $74,000 by not going on the state contract. That money would not have been a waste if we had purchased the extra thick high quality garbage boxes we were expecting. It is a waste now that we know that isn't what we did.

I feel really bad that I didn't catch that detail. On the other hand, neither did the other 6 of my fellow council members, the Mayor, the DPW Director, and the purchasing agent at the dealership. A lot of people fell down on this one.

Fortunately, the trucks are holding up. They have problems and they are getting tired, but they're surviving. They should make their life expectancy.

Out of all this, some questions arise. One such is how to avoid this sort of thing in the future. Gloversville has a habit of throwing out its politicians (usually right about the time they truly figure out what they're doing). The greenhorns get in and have no idea what they're looking at when major decisions of this type confront them. Some will study the issue. Some just ask the department head and others do nothing and hope for the best.

There has to be a better way.

I am beginning to toy with the notion that every department ought to be professionally led, just like the Police and Fire Departments. Rather than have appointees we should have seasoned professionals.

I'm also thinking that commissions should be established for all departments. Transit, for example, already has one. The water board, while semi-autonomous and slightly different in nature, can generally be pointed to as a similar example. Commissions with interested citizens having some level of background in the areas of the particular department might help ensure council members are comfortable with the information they receive.

Still, it is already difficult to fill existing boards and commissions. The notion seems good, but might be impossible to fill.

I'm hoping readers might have additional suggestions.

A recent Leader Herald editorial bemoaned the lack of openness regarding the recently concluded Grandeaux investigation of EmailGate at City Hall. As happened in the Margiotta dismissal of 2007 and Harzinski dismissal of 2008, the information on why the decisions were made, as well as the findings of various investigations, were not generally available to the public.

It is common in such situations for people to believe a cover-up of some sort is in progress; and, in all honesty, now that I've been out of office for nearly two years, I can much better appreciate the sentiment.

But that doesn't change the law - and not just the law for the law's sake, but the law and the reason the law exists the way it does. The reasons for executive session are clearly delineated in the New York State open Meetings Law, and, either within the law itself or within the many dozens of findings and adjudications that have been rendered in the years since it was created, good reasons to explain why something should remain in executive session have been provided.

The current argument as expressed on the Gloversville BID Board is that an elected official shouldn't have the same privacy as a non-elected employee. Something about the nature of the whole election thing makes some people feel a different level of transparency is required.

While I can certainly appreciate the sentiment, here is what one portion of the law states as a reason for an executive session, "f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;"

http://www.dos.state.ny.us/coog/openmeetlaw.html

While rather broad, we can look upon this and see that this most recent affair allegedly regarding Councilman Castiglione does indeed discuss the employment history of a particular person (Castiglione) and has the potential, under City Code Section 25-9, to result in "discipline," or "removal" of said individual.

Ergo, the law would seem to apply.

Of course, if there is a question as to its applicability, it would certainly stand to reason that anyone could send a letter to the Committee on Open Government seeking an advisory opinion on the matter.

Regardless of whether or not the law applies to elected officials, it should be pointed out that several existing advisory opinions located at the web address given above clearly indicate that except for information that runs afoul of other higher state or federal laws, executive sessions are always optional. Yes, there are 8 specific reasons that they can be held, but just because an executive session can be used does not mean it should be used.

And, perhaps, in some areas it just shouldn't be used. If doing so, whether legal or not, will only serve to anger the voters, and if publicly releasing the information will not have any particularly horrible effect upon the city, person or corporation, then by all means air the dirty laundry.