The League of Women Voters of Port Washington visited Glen Cove on Oct. 16 to moderate a City Council candidates forum, where the city’s sudden closure of the public hearing on its proposed 2026 budget became the most contentious question of the night. Moderator Judy Esterquest directed a series of detailed, audience-submitted prompts that challenged the candidates on transparency, public trust, and how much time residents should have to weigh in before the city finalizes its fiscal plan.
Just two days earlier, on Oct. 14, the Glen Cove City Council voted to end public comment after a single hearing — a major departure from the city’s long-standing practice of holding two meetings for residents to review and weigh in on the spending plan. This year’s proposal totals roughly $69.3 million and includes no property tax increase. Republican members of the council defended the expedited vote as lawful and efficient, while Democrats on the council and in the audience blasted the move as unnecessarily shutting down community participation.
Esterquest asked each candidate to respond to three questions: whether residents should have sufficient opportunity to question the budget, whether a “several-minute presentation” is enough for such a large document, and whether they have a plan to ensure taxpayers can meaningfully participate in decisions involving public money.
Incumbent Republican Councilman Michael Ktistakis defended the decision to adopt the budget swiftly. “Of course, the public has every right to know, to discuss anything that might be done to the city council,” he said. He emphasized that when the plan was presented “the city did have the opportunity to come out, ask their questions.” With no tax increase planned, he argued it was fiscally responsible leadership to move forward. “It’s a sound budget,” he said, pointing to the city’s surplus. He credited Mayor Pamela Panzenbeck and Controller Mike Piccirillo, saying they “have done a phenomenal job in promoting this city through these last couple of years.” For those reasons, he said, he “second[ed] the motion of promoting to pass this budget.”
Democratic challenger Carla Anastasio said she was “really stunned” when the public hearing closed so abruptly. Framing the issue as a fundamental civic right, she asked, “When is it ever a good idea to silence the public in a democracy?” She said this concern “is not a partisan thing,” remarking that free speech and public participation “make us American.” She argued that residents deserve more than a quick briefing. “A short presentation on a budget, a $68, $69 million budget no, a couple minutes is not [enough],” she said. The ability to analyze how tax dollars are allocated, she insisted, “is our responsibility as citizens.” Especially in Glen Cove, a community where she said people support one another “just because you lived here,” she called limiting input “very concerning.”
Republican candidate Ellen Pantazakos agreed that residents have “every right to ask questions,” but she stressed that constituents also have a duty to fully engage. “People need to go online and look at the budget,” she said, noting that department heads work hard to justify their requests. The document was posted publicly before the meeting, and she said council members were prepared to answer questions — yet none were asked. “The main thing was, why are you closing the session? You close the session because there’s no questions,” Pantazakos argued. She supports having multiple presentations where helpful, but emphasized regular civic involvement: “People need to come to city council meetings more and get more informed, and be more active in our city.”
Democratic incumbent Danielle Fugazy Scagliola said the process — not the tax impact — is the core issue. “A good budget, a bad budget, whatever it is, the public has a right to comment on it,” she said. If the council wanted to use a one-night format, that should have been communicated up front. The budget went online only the Friday before the hearing, giving residents “four or five days to read a 70-page document.” She said people need time to understand staffing decisions, raises, and departmental spending: “You need to be able to look at all of these things.” With a decade of budget experience, she said practice has “always been two” sessions, making this “a complete switch.” Still, she stressed that residents can always “find us, email us, come to meetings… I’m open to anything.”
Democrat incumbent John Zozzaro said the change came as much of a surprise to him as to the public. “We were told in pre-council that we would have it in two weeks,” he said, calling the move to close comment “completely ridiculous.” Democrats and Republicans alike, he argued, rely on transparency to govern credibly. “Why would we want to shut people from Glen Cove?” he asked. Zozzaro also raised concerns about long-term revenue projections tied to the county sales-tax shift.
Conversely, Republican candidate Daniel Grabowski argued that the council acted well within the law. “There is not anywhere in the city code that requires the city council to prolong the vote until the October 4th deadline,” he said. Calling it “a good budget,” he said a single public hearing was enough and that Mayor Panzenbeck “does a fantastic job… getting the information out there.”
Republican incumbent Grady Farnan stood firmly by the decision to close the hearing. “Everyone in this room should look at the video of Tuesday night’s meeting,” he said, explaining that only one resident rose to speak after the mayor’s budget presentation. “When I look around and I see no one speaking about the budget… I made the motion to close. And it was a smart thing to do,” he said. He defended the plan’s 0 percent property tax increase, asking, “Who in this room doesn’t like it?”
Republican candidate James Greenberg focused on better communication channels moving forward. “One solution may be in the future to notify the public as far out in advance,” he said, suggesting direct text messages and emails to residents. But he also said citizens must take initiative: “You need to get involved and know what’s going on in your city if it’s so important.”
Democratic candidate Cathryn Harris Marchesi took a much sharper stance, calling the timeline “absolutely outrageous.” She noted that typical legal correspondence allows seven days for a reply — far more than the public received before being expected to comment on a 70-page document. She expressed concern that fee hikes, rather than tax increases, may be buried in the plan. “What it says is what is hiding in there,” she said. She also said the Democrats on the council were “told they were going to be two weeks to look at this,” calling that “a misrepresentation made by this current mayor.”
Republican incumbent Kevin Maccarone praised the budget process overall, noting the high attendance at the hearing and insisting that “not one person got up and had a question” beyond one resident who raised a thoughtful point. He called statements suggesting taxpayer cost increases “blatantly a false statement,” arguing that long-term revenue projections are uncertain and should not be assumed as tax hikes. Maccarone added that previous budget cycles were less transparent, saying that during his earlier service, he and other Republicans “were not even allowed to see the budget until it was presented.”
Democrat candidate Theresa Moschetta, who missed the hearing due to illness, said she nonetheless had questions about significant items, including a 4 percent reduction in commercial property taxes. She asked why a 0 percent change wouldn’t be more prudent: “Why wouldn’t we give them a 0 percent increase and shore up some of that money?” She also questioned staffing assumptions, including the building department’s part-time leadership. She called the speedy vote “really irresponsible” and suggested the motion “had to think that this was orchestrated.”
Democratic incumbent John Perrone offered one of the strongest condemnations of the night. “The budget that we closed after one hearing is a complete joke,” he said, stressing that the council “didn’t have to” end discussion so early. He said the presentation was high-quality — “The numbers balance. We have a phenomenal controller,” — but argued that residents and council members deserved more time. He reiterated that extending the hearing should have been a simple choice: “Absolutely.”
