Published: April 25, 2008 07:49 pm            

LEWISTON: Plumbing issue aims for soft landing

GOP Committee member questions union campaign funds

A hot-button issue that spurred a boisterous public hearing appears to be heading toward a soft landing in the Town of Lewiston.

The initial proposal, made public in February, to create a board to vet unscrupulous plumbers in the town sparked widespread opposition among contractors, who said it wouldn’t work and a proposed test would unnecessarily limit the pool of plumbers in the town.

After a capacity crowd of builders, plumbers and general contractors criticized the board during a March public hearing at town hall, the Town Board voted unanimously to create an ad hoc committee, including three of the contractors in the audience and two town board members, to explore the issue further.

The committee meeting took place last month and Councilman Sean Edwards said he’s set to unveil the latest proposal at Monday’s board meeting. It includes forcing plumbers to prove they’re insured but not to take a test before they’re registered with the town.

The law will likely be set for adoption by September, Edwards said.

The proposal’s original critic and a member of the ad hoc committee, Glenn Andrews, owner of Lewiston-based Glenwood Builders Inc., said the committee’s solution was “reasonable.”

“The meeting did go pretty well,” Andrews said. “They want to make sure plumbers have insurance, and I’m more than happy to give them insurance certificates.”

But the issue hasn’t settled down completely.

Ed Devantier, a committee member and recent chairperson of the Lewiston Republican Committee, sent a recent letter to the Niagara Gazette detailing campaign contributions to the board’s three Democrats, Edwards ($1,400), Michael Johnson ($750) and Supervisor Fred Newlin ($950) by the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 22, a commercial and industrial plumbers union. Edwards acts as one of three business agents for the union.

In the letter, Devantier raises several questions, including why the issue is being focused on and why it targeted plumbers but not other trades.

“It appears that Councilman Edwards uses his influence to finance his own campaign, as well as that of Supervisor Fred Newlin and Councilman Mike Johnson,” Devantier wrote. “Then the trio tries to push this agenda onto our community.”

By Friday, a host of people — both Republicans and Democrats — in the Town of Lewiston had received the letter.

Reached for comment, none of the board’s five members, including Republicans Ernest Palmer and Alfonso Bax, agreed with the letter’s assessment.

Edwards said that his union doesn’t stand to benefit because its members don’t do residential plumbing. He said he reviewed over 500 plumbing permits in Niagara Falls and Wheatfield, where such a registration process exists, and only two were jobs done by union plumbers. He noted that he made the motion, unanimously approved by the board, for a non-union contractor which had the low bid for the massive Mountain View Drive water lines job.

“This guy that wrote this should have come to these meetings and then he’d know he’s incorrect,” Edwards said.

Bax, who along with Edwards was a member of the ad hoc committee, backed Edwards.

“In (the proposal’s) new form, it doesn’t serve the purposes of unions at all and allows those who are making a living doing quality plumbing in the town to continue to do so,” said Bax. “I raised all the concerns that Ed put in his letter to (Edwards) and I was satisfied there were no ulterior motives.”

According to Johnson, the issue was initially raised by Don McSwan, the former acting building inspector, as a way to protect residents and the town from lawsuits.

“Do I think we need to test our contractors? I never agreed with that in the first place,” Johnson said. “I said, let’s talk to the contractors and we came up with a great idea.”

Palmer agreed: “I think the board acted in concert and did the right thing,” he said. “My understanding is that the building inspector was looking for a way to make sure contractors were properly insured and qualified to do work and protect some residents who suffered from substandard work.”

Newlin said the outcome of the public hearing, a committee with two councilmen of different parties and three of the critical contractors in the audience, proves there was no union influence.

“I think the new proposal certainly doesn’t benefit unions any,” Newlin said. “This is an unfounded political attack. It’s just completely wrong.”

When told of board members responses, Devantier said he wasn’t trying draw conclusions.

“I’m just proposing a question,” he said. “Many people may say, ‘Gee, I didn’t know that.’ ”

Later, he added: “I don’t know what goes on between town officials and town employees. I just take what I read in the paper and question things and in this case I had a few issues.”

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.