Board members acted within rights

The rule of law must prevail in legislative proceedings. This belief compels response to the Amherst Bee's editorial about participation in the May 14th work session of the Amherst Town Board.

As board members, we take our responsibilities very seriously. In a written opinion on Jan. 10, the town attorney stated that a deputy may act only during the supervisor's inability or absence, and that "the definition of absence must be reasonable, and not every momentary unavailability of the supervisor constitutes an absence."

In an e-mail sent by his secretary less than four hours before the May 14 session, Supervisor Satish Mohan advised that he had chosen not to attend due to "personal business." Rather, he sent an unelected individual whose appointment had never been approved by the Town Board. Surely, Amherst deserves better. The supervisor owes a duty to attend every board meeting, except when his presence is excusable due to illness or absence from the area. Even then, the supervisor must explain his absence, so that board members can know whether the excuse satisfies legal requirements. Instead, the supervisor invited us to condone a potentially impermissible delegation of authority. This presented special problems for the board's executive session, because the Open Meetings Law allows only "the official body" to attend.

If the supervisor wishes legally to appoint a deputy, he should submit his nomination to the board for approval. Until then, we believe that no deputy can fulfill the legal duties of supervisor. If our colleagues disagree, the board should seek clarification through an opinion of the state attorney general.

Your editorial suggests that we should have disregarded the formalities of the Town Code. But elected officials take solemn oaths to uphold the law. Consequently, we have no choice but to insist upon full and proper compliance with applicable rules of procedure.

Deborah Bruch Bucki

Daniel J. Ward Amherst Council Members