Published: October 30, 2009 02:02 am      

ELECTION 2009: Kibler, Mullane vie for alderman-at-large post

He’s too set in his ways, Anita Mullane says.

She’s naive about the dilemmas facing the city, Joe Kibler says.

That’s how two strong-willed candidates for alderman-at-large sized each other up this week in a joint interview with the US&J.

Recycling and the budget process, arbitration and the firefighters’ union contract, and affairs in the assessor’s office, all hot topics this year, drove a spontaneous debate between Kibler and Mullane. The back-and-forth was civil but spirited, as Kibler and Mullane each worked to have the last word on everything, even their community service credentials.

Though they’re well apart in age and political philosophy, Kibler and Mullane have common ground in volunteerism, particularly for youth causes. Both say they’re running for alderman-at-large as an extension of that spirit.

Kibler, who’s completing his eighth year in office, said he’s going for a fifth term because he enjoys “helping people out” and would like to think he represents common-sense values in government.

Mullane said her candidacy is propelled by belief that “it’s time for a change, time to change the status quo” at City Hall.

Penny wise, pound foolish?

Mullane counts herself among residents who’ve waited patiently for the city to implement a full, curbside recycling program and was disappointed, again, when the Common Council nixed proposed 2010 start-up funding.

Its reason for cutting a contract with Modern Recycling out of the budget was right, she said — she wouldn’t embrace a tax rate increase to have it either — but she finds fault with its failure to cut other spending instead, so residents finally could have a service they’ve wanted for years.

“I believe if you go through the budget line by line, there are things in there that we can do without. It’s a choice; it’s what do you feel is important versus what can you get rid of in favor of recycling?” Mullane said. “If you want something badly enough, you find a way to make it happen.”

According to Kibler, Council members do go through the budget line by line every year. There wasn’t anything that could be cut safely this time to make room for the expenses of recycling, he said, especially after last-minute questions were raised about the true cost of the Modern contract.

“The timing was not right. Going into this budget, we knew we don’t have any of our union contracts settled. We have a serious situation with the Delphi assessment (lawsuit) ... and then it turned out we were going to have to pay more (for Modern service) than we were originally told,” Kibler said. “I’m definitely in favor of recycling, but like most folks I talk to, not if it’s gonna raise taxes.”

Mullane sat in on a meeting of the recycling committee this past summer and heard its report showing there’s long-term savings in recycling. The report showed the city would spend more on refuse operations overall for two years, then begin seeing cost reduction every year thereafter, compared with the cost of continuing to landfill all garbage. She asked Kibler why he didn’t think more about the long-term savings before deciding recycling wasn’t worth backing.

His answer: The short term matters, too.

“You’re looking at 10 years from now and I’m looking at now. People call me up and tell me, ‘I can’t afford my taxes, I’ve gotta put my house up for sale,’” Kibler said. “We will put it in (the budget), just not this year.”



Fire fight

From recycling, Kibler and Mullane segued into a sharp disagreement about the firefighters’ union and how to handle a recent arbitration ruling that could cost the city an extra $500,000 a year to comply with.

Kibler has never disguised his disagreements with the union line. He yanked the talk away from recycling by declaring the city could easily afford it, if only the firefighters’ union would agree to department reorganization.

According to Kibler, reassigning firefighters to three, eight-hour shifts per day, in place of existing 10- and 14-hour shifts, would meet the minimum shift manning level that the union sued the city to have, while virtually eliminating automatic overtime that costs it dearly year now.

“The union turned it down,” he said. “We could put recycling in tomorrow if they’d do that. You don’t negotiate with these guys, you fight with them.”

Mullane said festering hostility between firefighters and city administration, and the lack of negotiation on a new contract to replace the one that expired in 2007, is one of her biggest concerns.

She puts some of the blame on Kibler personally, suggesting disparaging comments he’s made about union members over time helped “put up a brick wall.”

“They haven’t had a contract for a long time, and I think having a new face on the Council might help with that,” she said. “I know there are two sides to every story. I would like to hear both sides and make my own judgment based on what’s best for the citizens of Lockport.”

Mullane identified herself as member of New York State Union of Teachers, AFL-CIO affiliated, and told Kibler, “negotiate means to discuss. There’s give-and-take on both sides. It shouldn’t have to be a fight. I’d like to try to change that situation ... .”

Kibler responded that thanks to New York state, firefighters unions are lot more powerful than educators’ unions. The city hasn’t won an arbitration case in decades; it’s choking on the pro-union biases of arbitrators, whose rulings are binding, the incumbent said.

“If we could give and take, that would be great, but it doesn’t work that way,” he said. “These people will tell you, ‘the public doesn’t really care what you pay us as long as we take care of their safety.’ That’s their attitude. ... The arbitrators’ attitude is, ‘it’s not that you can’t pay them, it’s that you won’t pay them.’ They’ve got (pay enhancement triggers) in their contract and we can’t get it out. ... Good God, the number of fires we’ve had in the city of Lockport is nil.”

Mullane sensed where he was headed — to the threat of staff reductions — and cut him off.

“You’re gambling. It’s like fire insurance. You don’t know when you’re going to have a fire, a terrorism incident in your back yard ... . Aren’t (staff reductions) putting residents at risk when something does happen, like Macaluso’s shoe repair?”

Asked whether she would sponsor a resolution to hire 10 firefighters in order to satisfy the arbitrator’s minimum manning ruling, Mullane said she would not, but she would seek the chance to help negotiate a settlement — within one term of office, she hastened to add.

Kibler shook his head, seemingly in disbelief.

If she does win, he advised her: “Change your attitude about the unions at City Hall. They’re a lot tougher than you think.”

Is it personnel?

Kibler asked Mullane directly whether she intended, if elected, to push promotion of her sister to the post of assessor. When she told him “absolutely not,” he asked her again. “You’re sure?”

Lena Villella is a longtime employee of the perennially troubled three-person assessing department. Three assessors have quit in the past five years. Kibler is well aware Villella, the real property appraiser, openly courted the job in 2004, was later offered it with no city residency strings attached and turned it down — and that people who believed she was the best candidate blamed then-Council members for her not taking it. When Peter Galarneau quit the post this past winter, he blamed “impossible” conditions in the office for his departure. Mayor Michael Tucker said Galarneau had grown weary of fighting with his subordinates.

Emphatically, Mullane says it isn’t blood ties that motivate her candidacy.

“I wouldn’t throw myself into a race like this over something like that, because (running) involves an awful lot,” she said. “If (a motion to appoint an assessor) came to the table, I’m not the person that would be offering it to her. The mayor makes that recommendation.”

Hypothetically, she said, if Tucker did offer her sister an appointment, she’d abstain from voting on it “if somebody thought it was a conflict of interest.”

“I wouldn’t be the first (official) to have a family member work for the city,” she added. “And, honestly, who better to put on the Council than somebody who actually does get along with her?”