Wbg. law allowing new board member to hold two posts fails

WARRENSBURG | A proposed local law that would allow Joyce Reed to serve simultaneously as a town board member and as town water and sewer collection clerk failed due to a tie vote by the board following a public hearing Dec. 28. The session was held in conjunction with a year-end town meeting. Reed has held the collection clerk's position since 2019, and in November she was elected, by a wide margin, to fill the remaining year of former town board member Donne-Lynn Winslow's unexpired term in office. She is scheduled to take office Jan. 3. Reed had previously served on the town board — until mid-2017 when she resigned from the board to work in the town clerk's office. She was formally appointed to take on the new water and sewer clerk post in 2019, taking over the water and sewer collections that were formerly conducted by the Town Clerk's office personnel. Most of the town residents speaking at the hearing were opposed to the proposed law, while a few supported it and several appeared confused by why it was needed or what it entailed. The proposed law, which specifically allows a Warrensburg sewer and water clerk to also serve on the town board, was introduced by town supervisor Kevin Geraghty at the town's Dec. 14 meeting, which prompted emails questioning the procedure of how it was introduced. Geraghty said at the public hearing that he wasn't aware that serving in such dual positions was counter to state law until Town Attorney Roger Hafner notified him Nov. 21 that serving in both posts was "incompatible." In early December, Geraghty continued, Reed delivered to him sections of state law that disputed Hefner's interpretations of the legislation. Geraghty said he then forwarded Reed's information to Hafner, but he did not receive a reply until Dec. 13, the day before the board's December monthly meeting. In this late response, Hafner proposed a local law that would allow one person to serve as water and sewer collections clerk and a town board member, on the grounds that no other qualified candidates were available to fill the collections post. A half-dozen people expressed opposition to the law, citing reasons that a town law shouldn't be enacted to benefit one person, or that the assertion in the proposed law that there were no other available qualified applicants wasn't true. Others expressed opposition saying that if the law were passed, it might prompt other town employees to seek and receive such legal privileges to bypass prevailing state ethics laws. Former town board member Linda Marcella offered her thoughts. "I have served on numerous boards, many of them governing boards, and never once was an employee allowed to serve on a governing board, because there's too much (opportunity) for conflict of interest," she said. Marcella added that the 2020 U.S. Census indicated there were 610 people in town working in management, office and administrative support positions that were likely qualified to work in the collections post. "An effort should have been made to find someone qualified" who was interested in taking on the job, she continued. This point was also voiced by town board member Bryan Rounds. Marcella also said that when laws become enacted they stay on the books, and this one might open the door for someone who might not be ethical or credible to take on the dual positions. "The town board exists to govern and serve the majority and not one person," she said. "There's an entire town you should be representing." Resident Michelle Bedell echoed Marcella's points. Geraghty responded that the law was effective for only one year, but another resident said such a stipulation was not specified in the proposed law. Geraghty responded that the law could be amended or rescinded at any time by the town board. Resident and business owner Gary Cooper asked pointed questions of town officials present, inquiries that implied that potential conflicts of interest already existed and that Reed's position wasn't likely to have potential for improprieties. Joyce Reed said she understood state law to mean that people serving in two elected positions at once were subject to the state's preclusions, but not the two roles in which she would be serving, as one was appointed and the other was elected. Also, she said that state law allowed town board members to be appointed to take on additional specific duties, like water and sewer collections. She also said she would not be accepting the annual stipend for town board members of $5,500. "You can appoint a board member to have a second position in the town if it's going to fiscally help the town," Reed said. Town board member Rich Larkin said that "procedural missteps" had occurred in proposing the law, including lack of adequate notice to board members and the public, and that the proposal wasn't listed on the Dec. 28 agenda or posted on the town website. Various board members, including Geraghty and Alexander, said that Reed has been an efficient and diligent water and sewer collections clerk, had streamlined the relevant town codes and had straightened out billing inconsistencies and anomalies. One person who did not identify himself said, "You are opening up a can of worms for every employee to sit on the town board and make rules and make decisions on their own lifestyles." Geraghty and Alexander voted to enact the proposed law, and Rounds and Larkin voted against it. Reed is scheduled to be sworn in at the town's annual organizational meeting, set for 11 a.m. on Tuesday, Jan. 3. Geraghty said Dec. 28 he had not heard from Reed about whether she would be giving up her town board seat or resigning from her collections clerk position. Efforts to reach Reed by email and phone calls were unsuccessful several days after the meeting.

Signup for our newsletter

Wbg. law allowing new board member to hold two posts fails

COMPANY

CUSTOMER SUPPORT

SUBMISSION FORMS

BEYOND THE NEWS