OBSERVER Photo by Jo Ward Dunkirk Common Council.

The first Common Council meeting in the city of Dunkirk in 2020 was especially heated Tuesday, as voices from the public, Mayor Wilfred Rosas and members of the council all chimed in with their feelings and sentiments on the removal of three city officials.

The appointed members of Rosas’ cabinet slated for dismissal were Human Resources Director David Campola, Executive Assistant Vicki Westling and City Attorney Richard Morrisroe; all were discussed and all were removed through a super majority vote of the Common Council.

Concerned citizen Ned Divine agreed that walk-in resolutions lacked transparency and for that reason has opposed the notion, however he does understand that sometimes they are required for a city to work efficiently. He questioned who wrote the resolutions for the meeting as they weren’t Morrisroe.

Williams stated that they did attempt to do a prefile on the walk-in resolutions, but stated that Morrisroe got the prefile wrong. “The city attorney wasn’t even in the building at the time that things were supposed to be filed so we had to go to outside counsel,” Williams said. “I do not anticipate that any city money will be used to pay for that, that was done as a favor to us to get these resolutions in.”

Several other citizens got up and stated their discontent with the goings on, feeling that the city should move towards unity not divisiveness — especially with a new council.

“I’d like all the sponsors of the resolutions, including the councilman-at-large to give the citizens of Dunkirk valid reasons why this man is being removed,” former councilman Mike Civiletto asked concerning Campola. “I’d like you to convince us this is not political, that this is not personal, that this is a benefit to us as citizens.”

As the meeting rolled on, Rosas notified all in attendance that he will be exercising his executive veto power.

“I believe that there is a power struggle between the legislative branch and the executive branch happening here in the city and there will only be one loser if this struggle continues and that would be our city taxpayers,” Rosas said.

According to Morrisroe, the claims of the council border on illegal. He cites that back in September of 1985, a local law was presented in a resolution to amend the city charter allowing Common Council to remove any appointive officer at any time with three-quarters vote of the entire Common Council. The resolution passed council and was added to the charter, however Morrisroe claims to have found no evidence of a mandatory referendum, as the sitting mayor at the time, Edwin Gregoreski, vetoed it. It never made it onto a ballot to be voted on by the citizens, therefore that power in the city charter is deemed, in his opinion, null and void.

“If you take the action and move forward, we’ll have to battle in court and the city will have to pay outside counsel and will have to pay for conflict counsel which is allowed by city code if (the city) council decides to pursue this,” Morrisroe added.

As the meeting rolled on each resolution for removal was met with a 4-1 vote, the single “nay” belonging to Second Ward Councilman Marty Bamonto on each one.

“Getting rid of three key people in the mayor’s cabinet, that leaves a humongous hole, tomorrow morning the mayor would have to wake up and he doesn’t have an attorney and he’s running a $25 million budget,” Bamonto told the OBSERVER following the meeting. “I think it’s just the wrong time to do all three at the same time, without talking, without the mayor having time to go and look for other people. Tomorrow they’re not going to be here, according to what they wanted tonight, and that’s totally wrong. I can’t do that and protect the city’s taxpayers.”

“They came in with their minds made up,” Rosas said after the meeting as well. “They gave these people no opportunity to prove themselves and I thought that that was wrong. I disagree with these decisions, but the way that they’re doing it is very telling to me that they’re not looking out for the city of Dunkirk’s best interest. The fact that they are not willing to work with me or my administration, there’s not other way to respond, but to legally fight it.”

Councilman-at-large Paul VanDenVouver and First Ward Councilman Don Williams had a different take however.

“The council voted the way the council feels is the best way to move forward in the city of Dunkirk,” Williams told the OBSERVER. “I think the veto is a pathetic attempt, he knows that we’re going to override it. We had a 4-1 vote, so he’s just purposely doing this to cost the city more money.”

“This council won– overwhelmingly in the November election,” VanDenVouver added. “I campaigned on getting rid of these people. I think they are more a hindrance than helpful for the city of Dunkirk. If they want to fight it and cost the tax payers money, that’s on them; we want them out. We think we’re doing the right thing by removing these people. They are not an asset to the city. It’s a family and friend job that the mayor, Willie Rosas, put in.”

The city plans to file for a judicial review with the council override once Rosas’ 10-day grace period, allotted by his veto, is up. Each of these individuals are expected to be at work still in city hall today.