After months of debate the Bethlehem Town Board has approved changes to two town laws, but some residents remained unsatisfied.
Two public hearings were held on Wednesday, June 13, so residents could voice their opinions on changes to the town’s ethics and sign laws before a vote took place. Both laws were ultimately approved, but not before adjustments were made following the voicing of concerns from members of the community and several board members.
Changes to the former town ethics code were introduced after an ethics committee was formed in January. Many of the recommendations followed those established by the state Comptroller’s Office, but some were changed after several board members felt they did not match the needs of the town.
Completely removed from a previous draft was a section preventing officers in a political party from serving on boards. Most board members felt that section of the law was unnecessary. Councilman Jeffrey Kuhn had said some could argue it took away First Amendment rights.
“Over the years we’ve had a town attorney, we’ve had a supervisor and we’ve had at least one Town Board member that have all been officers of a political party,” said Deputy Supervisor John Smolinsky. “Were their actions politically motivated or partisan? My opinion is yes, sometimes, and that’s inappropriate.”
The new ethics law establishes a five-member ethics board to give advisory opinions to town employees and public officials when consultation is needed regarding the ethics law. No more than two people from one political party can be on the board.
There was also a discussion on the law’s nepotism section and language was removed that would have disallowed children of public officials from serving as seasonal employees and would have prevented town employees supervised by a family member from applying for promotions. A provision prohibiting employees from hiring or supervising a family member was left in, but current employees will be grandfathered into the law.
Supervisor John Clarkson voted against removing the nepotism provisions.
“The whole idea of this provision is that it’s considered, by the folks at the Comptroller’s Office, many of us and many of the public, to be an impossible feat for, say, a parent to neutrally judge their own offspring in competition with someone else,” he said.
The law was passed by a unanimous vote after the changes were made.
Split vote for new sign law
Wednesday’s meeting hinted at continued confusion over the town’s sign law. Several residents spoke at the public hearing merely to get clarification on where signs can now be placed, including Paul Miller, chairman of the board of the North Bethlehem Fire Department.
The old law did not allow for signs to be placed in the right-of-way of any road owned by the town, county or state but because of vagueness in the wording and poor enforcement, many believed otherwise.
“We have been told by the county and the state that they don’t want any signs on county or state roads, so all we’re doing is eliminating any potential ambiguity” said Kuhn.
The new version of the law allows temporary signs to be placed on private, non-commercial property at the discretion of the property owner. Temporary signs such as advertising for community events and political signs cannot be placed on town, county or state owned roads.
The board did vote to lessen the proposed right-of-way length in the law for signs on private property from 15 feet to 5 feet. Kuhn proposed the change after hearing several complaints from residents that the length was too far back.
“Fifteen feet, that’s my front door,” said Kim Lawler, co-chairwoman of the Hamagrael Elementary PTA, who was among the first residents to bring complaints about the law to the board. “Who can see at my front door if we’re trying to advertise an event?”
Some residents questioned the cost of enforcing the sign ban on specific roads and said an issue could arise if the political signs of one party are left up longer than the signs of another. Clarkson had mentioned he did not think it would be an issue because it would look bad to voters if they noticed a candidate had placed signs in an illegal area.
The law passed 3-2 with the changes to the right-of-way distance. Councilman Kyle Kotary and Councilwoman Joann Dawson voted against the law, saying it is too complicated.
Kotary added he believes the law limits freedom of speech, erodes the rights of property owners and make the town responsible for enforcing state and county codes.
“And it still does not really provide any relief to community organizations and not-for-profits who brought this to our attention in the first place,” he said.