Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents allege open‑meeting issues and ask for fair probe into public works director
Summary
Three residents raised concerns during public comment: one alleged possible improper executive‑session use relating to a county fire presentation, another questioned City funding for a $67,000 Town traffic study (City asked to cover 10%), and a third requested a fair investigation into the public works director’s administrative leave.
Three residents used the public‑comment period at the City of Batavia conference meeting on May 26 to press the council on open‑meeting practices, a proposed Town traffic study contribution and the handling of an administrative leave.
Howard Owens of 8 Morton Ave told the council that serial meetings and using executive sessions to discuss the county fire presentation could violate the open meetings law and urged the council to correct any violations. John Roach of 116 Grandview Terrace questioned why the City was being asked to pay 10% toward an estimated $67,000 traffic study requested by the Town and asked what benefit Batavia would gain. Chan Patel of 6 Union Square asked for a “fair investigation” into the decision to place Public Works Director Tom Phelps on administrative leave and suggested using retired police officers or former employees rather than hiring an outside firm.
Council staff responded during the council’s reply. Van Nest said other communities hold executive sessions when necessary and stated that personnel matters would be addressed through Human Resources rather than at the council dais. Mrs. Tabelski clarified that the City’s proposed support of the Town traffic study would focus on major streets, while the City’s earlier joint study in 2011 had concentrated on local streets.
Why it matters: claims that a municipal body improperly uses executive sessions touch on statutory transparency requirements and could prompt further review if concerns persist. Questions about sharing costs for a Town traffic study raise budget and benefit‑to‑city considerations. Requests for an internal or alternate‑staff investigation into personnel actions relate to both process fairness and staff accountability.
Next steps: The public commenters’ concerns were recorded in the minutes and council members agreed to move related business items forward to the business meeting; the transcript does not record a formal directive to open an independent investigation or any council vote changing the administrative‑leave status.
Sources: Public comments and council responses recorded in the May 26, 2026 conference meeting minutes.
