A resolution approved by the Ellicott Town Board in March to eliminate a town justice position was widely questioned by the longtime elected officials themselves, several local residents and the county’s top prosecutor. The vote by town council members may have violated state Open Meetings Law as well.

Town justices Marilyn Gerace and Sally Jaroszynski criticized Town Board members Monday for axing one of the two posts set to take effect Jan. 1, 2024, at the expiration of Gerace’s latest term. Combined, the two judges have presided over matters taken up before Ellicott Town Court for about 46 years.

However, without prior warning, the Town Board on March 13 unanimously voted to abolish one of the two justice positions.

Town Supervisor Janet Bowman, in an email sent to Gerace and Jaroszynski after the vote, cited the board’s review of operations and departments to “determine how taxpayer money could either be saved or better utilized.”

Bowman said the decision to eliminate a justice followed a “difficult” budget cycle.

“It is anticipated future budget constraints will require the Town to operate in a more efficient manor to provide the services our residents deserve without over taxing them,” she wrote in her email.

Court records show Gerace and Jaroszynski heard 2,740 cases in 2022. The vast majority of those cases — 2,347 of the 2,740 — were vehicle traffic law in nature. Of those cases, 1,577 were resolved by both justices last year.

The pair also handled 272 criminal cases in 2022 as well as 29 civil cases, 70 cases dealing with town law and 11 environmental conservation law in nature.

On Monday, Gerace questioned the board’s path toward passing the resolution.

“This was not on the agenda for the meeting, and it was admittedly discussed in the executive session,” she said during the public comment portion of Monday’s Town Board meeting, attended by two dozen supporters wearing stickers that stated “Save Our Justice!”

“Not only are you attempting to dismember the court system in the town of Ellicott, but you have silenced the voices who have elected you to represent their best interests,” she said.

A resolution to abolish the post was not mentioned on the March agenda of the Town Board made available before the meeting. According to minutes from the meeting posted on the town’s website, the resolution also was not discussed prior to an executive session.

Only after the executive session ended, a half hour later, was the resolution brought up for a vote.

The apparent lack of public discussion and use of executive session for “litigation/personnel” appear to violate Open Meetings Law, according to two organizations contacted by The Post-Journal.

As noted Tuesday by Kristin O’Neill, assistant director of the Committee on Open Government, public bodies can meet in executive session to discuss “medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation.”

However, it doesn’t apply to discussions related to the elimination of a position. “In our view, the (Open Meetings Law) requires that such discussions occur in open session,” O’Neill said.

She also pointed out that proposed resolutions, laws, rules or regulations scheduled to be taken up by public bodies during an open meeting need to be made available upon request at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.

“Since, in our view, the elimination of a Town position is a discussion that should have occurred in open session, it is also our view that a copy of the resolution should have been made available to the public, to the extent practicable, consistent with the requirements of Section 103 (of the Open Meetings Law),” O’Neill said in an email.

Paul Wolf, president of the New York Coalition For Open Government, said talks over whether Ellicott should have one town justice or two was an important policy and budget decision that should have been discussed in public. He, too, said resolutions should be posted online at least 24 hours prior to a meeting for public review.

“The whole point of the law is that the public should be fully aware of what town board members plan on discussing so that they can show up and observe items of interest to them,” Wolf said.

The coalition is a not-for-profit advocacy group that promotes open government and freedom of information.

Wolf reviewed the Town Board’s March 13 agenda as well as the minutes from that meeting and the email from Bowman to Gerace and Jaroszynski.

“Right after the executive session was held a motion was made to eliminate one of the town justice positions, which was not on the meeting agenda,” he said. “It certainly appears that the matter discussed in executive session was regarding the elimination of a town justice position. Whether a town justice position should be eliminated is not a proper topic under the law for an executive session. The elimination of a town justice position is a policy and budgetary issue that should be discussed in public.”

There also is no mention of eliminating a town justice during Town Board meetings held in January or February.

Bowman, the town supervisor, did not return a call Tuesday regarding the vote and whether council members may hold a special meeting to reconsider the decision.

Gerace already has filed a petition with the town clerk that could force a townwide referendum vote to keep both justices.

In January, the Town Board set justice salaries for 2023 at $14,290.25 each. By comparison, the supervisor will earn $15,000 this year while each member of the board — Robert White, Patrick Tyler, Katy Whitmore and Kenneth Swan — will earn $4,000 each.

Jason Schmidt, Chautauqua County district attorney, expressed concerns with Ellicott moving forward with one town justice. He alluded to Ellicott as having one of the busiest town courts in the county.

“The elimination of one of two justice positions in such a high-volume court could jeopardize the integrity of our criminal prosecutions by leading to longer delays in the adjudication of individual cases, increasing wait times for all involved, including not just criminal defendants but witnesses and counsel as well, and increasing the court’s backlog which we have all worked so hard to reduce following the reopening,” Schmidt said in a letter read during Monday’s meeting.

“Without question, these factors could potentially lead to the dismissal of cases on statutory and Constitutional speedy trial grounds through no fault of the police or prosecutors,” he said. “This, in turn, could undermine public confidence in the legal system and diminish access to justice for our citizens.”