Mall sign passes, Bialkowski abstains, ethics board on hold

Posted by Philip Anselmo on August 25, 2008 - 9:04pm

Tagged in

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.

"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."

philip.anselmo
Login or register to post comments

Posted by Howard Owens on August 25, 2008 - 9:16pm

I'm glad Bob abstained. It was the right thing to do.

And I'm glad Charlie remained consistent and voted against spending taxpayer money on the mall, but I can't say it is unreasonable for the city to replace the sign. It's probably the right outcome under the circumstances at this time.

But I still say, "Mr. Mallow, tear down that mall!"

Posted by Daniel Jones on August 25, 2008 - 10:08pm

First of all, a thank you to Mr. Bialkowski for doing the right thing.

Charlie and Marianne showed good judgment and a commitment to real fiscal responsibility by voting against buying a new sign for the mall.

Posted by Wayne Speed on August 26, 2008 - 5:47am

When you or I or the City of Batavia destroy the property of another -- I don't think it unreasonable to expect that property to be replaced. Or to bring a lawsuit in order to have it replaced.

The Mall was a bad idea that did not work out. However, the city has contractual obligations that legally and ethically have to be carried out with the mall merchants. The city is in tough times. When you look at the past actions of the city fathers - mall, ambulance takeover, fire department, Dwyer Stadium, slowness of combining services with the county to save money in law enforcement - the city is paying for past mistakes.

Hopefully, a great deal more thought and concern for the taxpayers will go into present and future decisions especially when they will be paying over a long period of time.

Posted by Gabor Deutsch on August 26, 2008 - 3:34pm

A new mall sign or a compromise ?

Please do not exceed 20,000 dollars ?

How about 12,000 dollars and you could buy 4 eco-friendly light reflecting billboards with big red arrows pointing at the mall. That way everyone will "remember its there" .

The positive in this case is that hopefully, both sides can bite their lip once and awhile to finally settle the future of the mall once and for all.

Well it sounded good but let's see if it sticks.

Posted by Gabor Deutsch on August 26, 2008 - 8:53pm

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."

TWO WORDS: HOW MUCH ?