Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Correctional Facility Public Comments topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council on Auburn Correctional Facility job losses and FOIL requests; mayor rejects accusation of collusion with state
Summary
Multiple residents urged the council to address job losses at the Auburn Correctional Facility and alleged state actions; the mayor called the accusations baseless and directed residents to file Freedom of Information Law requests for documentation.
During the public comment portion of the March 20 Auburn City Council meeting, residents criticized the mayor and council for not publicly addressing job losses tied to actions affecting corrections officers and raised concerns about missing public records.
James Chambers, a resident of Swift Street, told the council the Auburn Correctional Facility is “the biggest singular employer in the city of Auburn” and said corrections officers had been fired across the state. “They have lost their livable wage jobs, pensions, health, dental, all the insurances,” Chambers said, and urged the city to provide weekly progress reports of actions taken on the matter.
Mayor Genentino responded during points of clarification, saying the council is not permitted to engage in back‑and‑forth during the public comment period but offered to meet after the meeting. He rejected an implied accusation of improper dealings with the governor as “absurd” and said, “I take personal offense to that.” The mayor noted he has sued the state twice in his 14 months as mayor and said he has been in contact with the superintendent of the prison and offered assistance.
Andrew Bishop, another resident, described tours he had taken of the correctional facility and expressed concerns about staffing and other local issues, and he reported filing Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests — including one for fire department financial records — that he said had not been answered.
The mayor directed Chambers to the city’s FOIL process and said if records exist they should be requested in writing through the clerk and the city will produce relevant documents pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law. He emphasized the council cannot engage in debate during the public comment segment but offered to address residents’ concerns personally after the meeting.
Councilors did not take formal action on the remarks during the meeting; the mayor’s response reiterated openness to meet with constituents and pointed to the FOIL process for records requests.
