The Dunkirk Common Council decided to postpone consideration of adding a city comptroller until next week.

The law needed to add the position came up on the agenda of last week’s meeting. Councilman-at-large Nick Weiser said that it was his understanding that the other council members wanted to hear more comments from the public. The council then moved to table voting on the law until its May 19 meeting.

Council had already just heard negative comments about the comptroller proposal from three city residents, who spoke during the public hearing that is legally required before a law can get passed.

Nancy Nichols, a former councilwoman, wondered how the cash-strapped city could fund a comptroller’s salary and asked, “Why do we need this when we have two people in the finance department who should know what they’re doing?

Patti Schanzlin wondered if a description of the position was in the city website. She briefly was greeted with silence until Councilwoman Natalie Luczkowiak replied that it was not online “because it hasn’t been passed, it’s not set in stone, and we still aren’t going to do that today.”

Schanzlin said she was not arguing against the position itself, but complained that it hasn’t been clarified. She fired off a lengthy series of questions, on things such as whether it would be a civil service position, how it would be filled, the salary, and the job description.

“These are not unreasonable questions, they are basics of transparency and good governance,” Schanzlin said.

Ronald Burnside said a description of the comptroller position is not on the website but is available at the city clerk’s office. A day before the office was closed to the public for the week over alleged staffing issues, he commented, “The city clerk’s office is behind and I think they’re overworked.”

Burnside questioned why the comptroller and fiscal affairs officer would have six- year terms while the mayor serves for four years, noting that would mean future mayors would serve with financial officials they did not choose.

“I just don’t think it’s a good law. Throw it out and start again. The way it’s written is not good,” he said.