Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Youth Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges change to youth bureau spending; council and attorney discuss confidentiality and records
Summary
A resident urged the council to redirect a $5,400 youth bureau line item toward youth programming and questioned the bureau's structure; the meeting also included a discussion with the city attorney about confidentiality, FOIL/redaction and a newspaper article naming a former employee.
During public comment at the City of Tonawanda Common Council meeting, resident Robert Galtke urged the council to eliminate a $5,400 line item for the youth bureau and redirect the funds to youth programs, saying most activities duplicated parks-and-recreation work and characterizing the bureau’s paid positions as patronage.
Galtke said the 2025 budget allocates $5,400 to the youth bureau, “$5,000 of which goes towards salaries for a chair and sector,” and argued the city could merge youth functions into parks and recreation or rebrand the department to deliver programming more effectively. He told the council his research indicated the city does not meet the 20,000-population threshold for state youth-bureau funding and that many nearby municipalities have merged youth functions into recreation departments.
Council members responded: Council member Fisher said he would follow up with the mayor’s office to verify whether the youth bureau’s work justifies the expense; Council member Shiesley and others said they supported reviewing consolidation and spending efficiencies. Mayor John White said he previously reduced a youth-bureau payment and encouraged residents with concerns to speak with him directly.
Separately, council members questioned the city attorney about a recently publicized settlement. A council member noted a settlement clause in a prior resolution stating the name of a former employee and specific settlement terms “shall be kept confidential by all parties,” and asked about the legality of confidentiality provisions after a newspaper article identified a person the article said was the former employee. The city attorney explained that public officers law and FOIL allow redaction of certain personal personnel information, and that confidentiality clauses do not always prevent disclosure when a public entity is the subject of a records request; the attorney said the city is exercising its right under public officers law to withhold certain personal information to protect an individual’s privacy. The mayor was reported in a newspaper article as confirming a settlement with a former employee; council members questioned how the name appeared publicly despite a redaction.
No formal action was taken on the youth bureau during the meeting. Council members asked staff to gather more information for budget deliberations and to consider consolidation or reorganization options before the next budget cycle.
Provenance
- Public comment by Robert Galtke: transcript block starting at 2328.0652 contains Galtke’s presentation and budget figures ("the 2025 budget allocates $5,400 to the youth bureau, $5,000 of which goes towards salaries...").
- Attorney remarks on records and redaction: transcript blocks starting about 492.745 through 656.55 contain attorney explanation of public officers law and redaction authority; the mayor’s reported statement to the newspaper is included in the same exchange.
Context and next steps
Council members said they would review the youth bureau’s activities and budget line items over the coming months and requested follow-up information from the administration. Council member Fisher said he would email the mayor’s office to confirm the bureau’s activity level and funding justification. The attorney’s explanation clarified the city’s use of FOIL redactions for personnel information but did not change any immediate council action regarding the settlement or the youth bureau.
