This is NOT the official website for Community Board #1.
Their official site is located at: www.cb1.org
This is the response from Marc Ameruso
WE SHOULD RESTORE ANNUAL ELECTIONS WITH TWO YEAR TERM LIMITS FOR THE OFFICERS OF THE BOARD STARTING IN 2006
The community board should have annual elections with two year term limits. This will avoid the fiefdoms of the past and cause the Chair to be more responsive to all board members.
Our future elections will be less political and deceive with more board members participating.
This upcoming special election can be a test case of sorts because the term will end in a year.
If the members do not like the way the new Chair is leading the board or if campaign promises are not kept, there will only be one year to wait to elect someone else.
We have a unique opportunity to have an election without internal and outside pressures.
I am asking you for that one year to prove myself and to implement the reforms of open government and inclusiveness that I have been advocating for the last several years some of which is included in this questionnaire.
Marc Ameruso
ALL COMMUNITY BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS MUST BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
I have been on record with this subject.
All meetings should be open to the public and board members, period!
There should not even be a second thought about it.
The violations of the open meeting laws that have been occurring by convening or attending secret meetings would absolutely not happen or be tolerated under my leadership if elected. The Chair should not be looking for loop holes in the City Charter to have secret meeting.
Open government is the best type of Government.
We are a community board, not the U.S. Senate, with the optative word being "community".
The community board is the first line of defense for our neighborhoods and should be open and welcoming to all.
Marc Ameruso
WE SHOULD HAVE A DETAILED EXPLANATION AS TO THE RELATIONSHIP OF "FRIENDS OF CB#1" AND THE ACTUAL BOARD AND THE PAID STAFF
I have certainly been on record with this matter.
Simply put there must be a distinction between CB#1 and the Friends of Community Board One.
The fact that office space, phones, computers, and personal (on the City dime), etc.. are shared at the community board offices is problematic if the Community Board is to operate in a true spirt of independence with all 50 ‘Community Board No.1 members’.
I would have no problem with the Friends of Community Board One helping us, but there must be a definite and respectable disconnect between the two organizations.
The first step would be to have the Friends of Community Board One find there own address.
We would then be able to work together and separately, and not as one entity controlled by the same people.
Marc Ameruso
WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION FROM OF ALL MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND REDUCE THE IMPACT FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
My entire past campaign platform has been based on the participation and delegation of duties of all board members.
I am clearly on record the last several years that this was a problem while others have sat by and remained silent on the subject.
When the thought process of maximizing board member participation becomes policy, everything else will fall into place and there can be no going back to the old ways.
Spreading out responsibility gives us checks and balances so the board then can not be completely controlled by the Chair and a few members.
The attempt by the previous Chair and the Executive committee to shove the Code of Conduct down our throats is a perfect example.
If board member participation is diversified things like the Code of Conduct will not be able to happen.
The Code of Conduct was and is against my "core values" which is very different from agreeing to disagree on the size, shape or color of a building for example.
These type of issues that can always be negotiated to a comprise, however there is no middle groung for those who advocate limiting free speech no matter how they may want spin it.
It was wonderful to see how the majority of the board members came together on that issue.
That comradery is what I want for us.
If elected I would want committee members to vote and chose their own Chairs and co-Chairs, anomalously as not offend anyone’s feelings.
The elected committee Chairs will be the new Executive committee, thus becoming a much more broad representation of the community board members who are not picked by the Chair.
I would also want as many board members as possible to attend meetings with elected officials, government officials, at hearings, ect,..., with the Chair or even better with out the Chair. I would like as many board members as possible to report back to the full board so it is not just the same few people or only the Chair giving reports.
You! will never hear from me; I had meeting with so and so, and this what is going to happen after the fact.
Everybody must be involved as much as they want to become involved.
We have the most talented community board in the City, I don’t want that talent to be wasted.
Marc Ameruso
WE SHOULD INSTITUTE MORE "SUBJECT MATTER" COMMITTEES THAT ARE CB-WIDE (SUCH AS A "QUALITY OF LIFE COMMITTEE" AND A LAND-USE COMMITTEE")
Sounds like a good idea. For example Landmarks is a subject matter committee. We used to have Quality of Life and Land-Use committees.
I think with all the anticipated Q & L and Land-Use issues coming up it may be beneficial to have board members who have some sort of subject matter expert experience in addition the board members who have an interest or want to learn about certain subject matters to serve on these committees.
I also think the geographic committees can continue.
There can always be a combine meeting between a subject matter committee and a geographic committee if there are issues of great concern of interest.
Marc Ameruso
WE SHOULD REMOVE THE CLAUSE FROM OUR BY-LAWS THAT PERMITS THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (INSTEAD OF THE FULL BOARD AS THE CHARTER STATES) TO REMOVE A MEMBER FOR CAUSE
One of the original purposes of the Code of Conduct as advocated at the ‘public meetings’ which I witnessed, was to create a mechanism to remove board members as recommended by the Chair.
That was and is wrong.
If a time comes where consideration to remove a board members comes up it should be done before the full board not the Executive committee.
This will give the board member under consideration for removal the fairest and most open hearing possible.
The By-Laws should be changed only to allow the full board to vote for or against a board members removal.
Marc Ameruso
NOW THAT THE FULL BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE STREET FAIRS TO RAISE OUR BOARD'S BUDGET, I WOULD LIKE SOME DISCUSSIONS ON WHETHER THE FUNDS RAISED SHOULD GO TO A COMMUNITY GROUP OR TO INCREASE STAFF SALARIES
I would prefer that the funds raised first be used for community groups and other community board needs that might not be adequately funded where applicable.
Salaries could be included only if needed, but the full board should discuss it for consideration or reconsideration.
Marc Ameruso