Injustice in a small Ny town

[Shankapotomus]

Denning trash czar fights firing with civil rights lawsuit

http://www.watershedpost.com/2012/denning-trash-czar-fights-firing-civil-rights-lawsuit



Snippet:

To hear his supporters tell it, Ed Mues was more than a trash man. Mues, recently dismissed by the Denning town board from his job as manager of the town transfer station, was a one-man social hub, friendly neighborhood recycling guru, and town welcome wagon.

"Ed Mues is the George Bailey of Denning," wrote local resident John Kuhner, on an online petition supporting Mues.

But every George Bailey must have his Henry Potter -- and Mues seems to have found his nemesis in Republican town supervisor Bill Bruning.

Last August, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed against the town and its five board members in federal court on February 8, Mues attracted Bruning's ire when he sent an email to a few dozen local residents urging someone to step forward and run for supervisor on the Democratic ticket. An excerpt:

There must be someone who can run for the position for the simple reason that if the current supervisor, Bill Bruning, runs unopposed, then the Town of Denning appears to all to be deeply flawed. No matter what the office, no one should run unopposed. It is un-American and unhealthy for the collective psyche of our town.

It doesn't matter that Bill gets elected. He is a very good fiscal manager, and over all, a good Town Supervisor. If someone runs against him, then and only then, will we have autonomy.

According to Mues's complaint, Bruning approached him at work the following Monday, warning him to stay out of town politics.

The complaint, embedded in full below, lays out Mues's account of what happened next. But this much is indisputable: Last November, shortly after the town elections, the town board passed a resolution in closed session, changing the status of Mues's job as Town Recycling Manager from a hired to an appointed position.

In January -- again, in a closed session -- the town board declined to reappoint Mues, and voted unanimously to appoint Scott Mickelson to the job.

Robert Isseks, one of the attorneys who is representing Mues, says that the board's actions are a violation of Mues's right to free speech.

"It doesn't matter that it's a small town," said Isseks. "It's important that public officials respect the First Amendment. That's why this case is important. It's apparent that these public officials have just decided to ignore free speech and association rights."

More...

This sounds like a clear case of abuse of power. Maybe we should DU bomb the petition here?:

https://www.change.org/petitions/reinstate-ed-mues-as-recycling-center-manager

[xxqqqzme]

1. Happy to

recommend but alas I am not a citizen of Denning as the petition clearly states. Good luck to the thoughtful people of Denning and Mr Mues.

[Agony]

2. the board probably violated NYS Open Meetings Law. hopefully the citizens will take that matter up..

shortly after the town elections, the town board passed a resolution in closed session, changing the status of Mues's job as Town Recycling Manager from a hired to an appointed position.

What can a public body discuss in executive session?
Pursuant to the proper motion, a public body may discuss only issues listed in §105(1) of the Open Meetings Law. A public body cannot vote to appropriate public monies during a closed session. Although most public bodies (except school boards) may vote during a properly convened executive session, any vote to expend public monies must be taken in public. See advisory opinions under “E” for “Executive Session” in the OML Advisory Opinion Index.

§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
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;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
What is an “executive session”?
The Law provides for closed or "executive" sessions under certain circumstances prescribed in the Law. It is noted that an executive session is not separate from an open meeting but rather is a portion of an open meeting during which the public may be excluded. The Law requires that a public body take several steps to close the meeting. First, a motion must be made during an open meeting to enter into executive session; second, the motion must identify the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered; and third, the motion must be carried by a majority vote of the total membership of a public body. See advisory opinions under “E” for “Executive Session” in the OML Advisory Opinion Index.

Can a public body close a public meeting for "personnel matters"?
Citing "personnel matters" is not a sufficient ground for going into an executive session. The motion to go into executive session should be more specific. For example, a motion could be made to enter into executive session to discuss "the employment history of a particular person." The person would not have to be identified. See advisory opinions under “P” for “Personnel” in the OML Advisory Opinion Index.