In 1789, Founding Father Benjamin Franklin wrote the following in a letter to French physicist Jean-Baptiste Le Roy: “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.”
A charter and a constitution are both documents that define the powers and privileges of an entity, such as a government.
The concept behind Franklin’s statement is that these types of documents may need to be changed. Everyone will die and pay taxes.
The Niagara Falls City Charter is the document which defines what is and is not permissible. It’s like a rule book for the city, but also a contract with the people who live there. Our charter covers everything from city organization to taxes, services, and citizen rights.
Mayor Restaino arranged a special meeting last Wednesday, as permitted by the charter. However, council members Donta Myles and Vincent Cauley did not attend, despite the charter’s permission for such meetings. Because of their unexcused absence and the excused absence of Chairperson Zajac, the council did not have the required quorum to conduct business.
Throughout his term, Myles has only exhibited rebellious behavior by either avoiding or attending special meetings but not voting, to demonstrate his disagreement with Restaino’s utilization of special meetings for agenda items. Through his prism of sanctimony, he thinks Restaino uses special meetings for non-critical agenda items.
Additionally, he thinks that Restaino should include these items in the agendas of regular meetings, which enable public input, a courtesy that is not granted during special meetings.
It is believed that Cauley intentionally missed the meeting as a way of expressing his disapproval of the mayor, just like Myles did.
The mayor’s utilization of special meetings is lawfully within the bounds of the city’s charter, making Myles’ and Cauley’s apparent opposition invalid and undemocratic.
SECTION 3.9 PROCEDURES: MEETINGS; RULES AND JOURNALS; VOTING states: B. Special meetings may be held at any time on the call of the Chairman or any three members of the Council. The Mayor may also call a special meeting provided that the Mayor shall be present at such meeting.
The notice of any special meeting shall be served personally upon each member of the Council or delivered to his or her residence or place of business not less than seventy-two (72) hours before the time fixed for such special meeting and shall contain a statement of the specific items of business to be transacted. No other business shall be conducted at such meeting. Special meetings on less than seventy-two (72) hours’ notice may only be held with the written consent of all Council members.
If Myles and Cauley find it so unjust, then perhaps they should introduce a resolution, hold an official public hearing, and put it to a council vote instead of pouting in the sandbox’s corner. That would take effort. For Myles, habitually pontificating seems preferable. The same may be true for Cauley.
What is not debatable is that their stunt denied the city an opportunity for better street lighting efficiency, to create an infrastructure for communitywide internet access and save the city thousands, if not millions of dollars for years to come.
One of the agenda items sought approval of a plan to upgrade the city’s street lighting to a smart street light technology system paid for with American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds.
What is smart street light technology? The system involves installing cameras, sensors, and devices on public lighting fixtures to monitor and control lighting conditions in real-time. Smart streetlights can enhance the safety and security of pedestrians and drivers by providing adequate lighting levels and visibility. They can detect accidents, crimes, or emergencies and alert the authorities or the nearby streetlights. They can also display useful information, such as parking regulations, accident alerts, or public announcements on digital signs.
Smart streetlights can also serve as community Wi-Fi hotspots. This means that anyone with a Wi-Fi enabled device can access the internet for free or at a low cost in areas covered by smart streetlights. This can have many benefits for low-income or underserved communities who need internet access for work, education, entertainment, or communication. Smart streetlight technology can help police solve crimes and verify trash collection. It can encourage innovation and entrepreneurship by providing opportunities for online learning and collaboration with cameras.
The citizens of Niagara Falls had the chance to move toward a “greener” city without the city having to pay the $4 million upfront cost, but petty ‘politricks’ got in the way and now we can’t have nice things.
Smart street lighting is not a new concept. In 2018, the state implemented the Smart Street Lighting NY program. The New York Power Authority (NYPA) gave a presentation to the council, extolling the substantial savings ($800,000 to $1 million) for the city if it took part in the program. NYPA would finance the $4 million the city would need to purchase all its pole lights. National Grid would provide the maintenance. The city would have needed at least 10 years to repay NYPA if it had agreed to the conversion program. Albany, Buffalo, Syracuse, and Utica signed on.
The difference this time is not the amount of the seed money, but the origin and type of seed money. ARP dollars are federal funds. The city did not have to come up with or borrow cash to have brighter streets, and it could have saved the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money.
Myles and Cauley didn’t care about saving energy costs, public safety, local businesses, and tourism and it hurt the residents. Smart streetlight technology and community Wi-Fi could have improved our quality of life, saved us money, and made our city smarter and safer.
So, I ask you, was skipping the special meeting a bright idea?