Fiscally troubled Dunkirk inaccurately believes it dodged the bullet of a control board in the last month when Gov. Kathy Hochul played both Santa Claus and the Grinch and came through with a $13.6 million loan that includes a 7.5% interest rate. Though not all the electeds were on board with the borrowing to repay a Revenue Anticipation Note to the state, Mayor Kate Wdowiasz and Common Council had absolutely no interest in having additional oversight of the city’s finances and management.

But a case involving a laid-off secretary, from Feb. 7, is the exact reason the city still needs a higher power to right its bloated $28 million budget that struggles for revenues.

Last month, state Supreme Court Judge Grace Hanlon ruled in favor of AFSCME Council Local 912. Hanlon flatly rejected the city’s argument that it complied with its union contract because it let the employee go after the agreement expired. The judge was also not impressed with Dunkirk’s argument that a no-layoff clause in the contract was unenforceable. She noted that contract addendums laying out exceptions to the clause never discussed financial hardship by the city.

“The court further pontificates that if the city… were able to terminate this one employee, based upon the logic that they have set forth in their petition, they would be permitted to terminate additional employees, despite valid CBAs being in effect,” the judge wrote. “This is a slippery slope that this court is not willing to navigate.”

That court ruling proves how powerless the city is when it attempts to cut expenses that will keep going up dramatically if positions have to be contractually filled with generous salaries and benefits that come in the public sector.

Now what?

Control board opponents continued to overstate that it would cost a struggling city too much to implement. Some even say that cost could be $1 million.

Though they are not incorrect, the reality is that the top five city employees — of 187 — earned between $116,000 and $129,000 in 2024. With benefits included for these posts, the costs are nearly $930,000 — or close to the $1 million opponents say the control board might cost or 3.3% of the city’s total budget.

Here’s the other major — and most significant factor. The control board has the ability to get the “no layoff” contracts changed. Elected city officials — especially this current group — have no clout, power or guts to do that.

That argument regarding the high cost of a control board is a scare tactic and cop out. The real big bucks of the city’s $28 million are in the employees’ pay and benefits.

If those details cannot be addressed, then nothing has changed. That is no way to stop the pain.