Town Board and the Lack of Ethics
April 19, 2012
By Ray Mooney
The recent history of ethics in our town may be found through the link on this blog’s first post.
The videos of the April 18 Town Board meeting may be found at:
http://youtu.be/05zXG1SLbRs Board comments Part 1
http://youtu.be/qYCff0jQFNw Board comments Part 2
http://youtu.be/Mqvz3q7DgXw Board comments Part 3
http://youtu.be/3jVk2FX2TGU Board comments Part 4
http://youtu.be/hXT7vJohIl0 For comments by Jack Conway and Ray Mooney
http://youtu.be/sPqGqafmYVE For Bonnie Lester Part 1
http://youtu.be/XjOvumu5rBo For Bonnie Lester Part 2
(Gadfly Note: It is VERY important for all readers to listen carefully to the comments made by Board members Mangold, OBrien and Matters on the first four clips above. Listen carefully to the arguments and positions advanced. We lost a few seconds of Bonnie's comments due to the necessity of changing memory cards.)
Last night the public hearing for the ethics code recommended to the Town Board by the Ethics Board was defeated by Ginny O’ Brien and Sue Mangold. Phil Malone was absent and did not vote. Rick Matters put forward the motion on the resolution (No. 54-2012) for the public hearing; Keith Langley seconded the motion.
After ten months of legal wrangling with Town Attorney Joe Liccardi the draft of the revised ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board is finally available to the public. It may be found at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obZ9TATyhVN7AYGt-Dgsb9n849K-9gCS-RFP3aI0bQg/edit
Rick Matters, Ginny O’Brien and Sue Mangold shared their thoughts on the ethics code. As an editorial comment we have heard Rick Matters speak before. His words last evening reflected his usual deep thoughtfulness, simple wisdom and sound, value based grounding in what is best for our town.
Town Hall was filled with members of the public for last night’s Town Board meeting. There were only a few empty seats. A number of members of the public spoke in support of the ethics code and in support of Rick Matters’ resolution for a simple public hearing. Not one member of the public spoke to support Ginny O’Brien and Sue Mangold’s opposition to the public hearing.
There were two really note worthy comments that made the evening interesting. The first goes to Tom Grant who thanked Rick Matters and told Mr. Matters and the Town Board and the public in attendance that last night was another example of why Tom was proud to have voted for Rick Matters.
But the top comment of the evening goes to Bonnie Lester. Bonnie spoke last and it was clearly a case of saving the best for last. And so, Bonnie, this article, with full credit and deep appreciation to you, borrows your question for the ages to our Town Board: “WHY NOT THE BEST?”
And so, rather than add anything to Bonnie’s simply perfect question I have decided to frame a series of additional questions to the Democratic Party majority that has chosen to block the ethics code recommended to them by their very own Ethics Board.
Ms. O’Brien and Ms. Mangold: You both spoke eloquently and at length about your own personal commitment to ethical conduct. If those words are valid why did you vote against the public hearing resolution? If your words have any real meaning shouldn’t you have backed those words up with a “yes” vote?
Ms. Mangold: You stated that you have never voted to enhance your family’s business positions in town. In just one example, at the 2012 Organizational Meeting you voted to confirm your brother as a town consultant. Didn’t that represent a conflict of interest? Do you want to revise your remarks?
Mr. Malone: How would have voted? “Yes” for the public hearing on the ethics code or “No” with your fellow Democrats? On an issue as important as an ethics code the voters of our town have a right to know and to hear your thoughts on the ethics code.
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: can you state for the record that as of this moment the Town is in full compliance with even the 1974 version of the ethics code? If you don’t know do you care to find out?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: You mentioned the size of our town as a factor is your lack of support for the recommended ethics code. How does that work? Are small town officials, in your minds exempted from behaving ethically? Is it only the glare of the media in larger cities that forces ethics on government officials? What exactly is it that makes a logical connection between the size of the town and officials responsibilities to conduct themselves to high ethical standards?
Ms. O’Brien: You expressed a concern that a decent ethics code will discourage people from running for office. What are you implying? That people run for office so they can conduct themselves in any way other than fully ethically? Further, if a good and decent ethics codes does, in fact, discourage people from running for office shouldn’t we view that as a good thing?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: Jack Conway, speaking on behalf of the entire Ethics Board, took strong exception to your characterization of the Ethics Board as not fulfilling its responsibilities to the Town Board. I was present at the September 2011 public meeting and I confirmed last night that Mr. Conway spoke factually. Do you wish to revise your remarks?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien – both of you have to abstain occasionally on votes because your family members’ work puts you in conflict with your duties as a Town Board member. That is never true for Mr. Matters and Mr. Langley. Why shouldn’t voters view that in the context of last night votes and question your true motives?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: The main issue you addressed last night in your rejection of the recommended ethics code is the financial disclosure requirement. Can you enlighten us, through you discussions with the other Town Board members, why Supervisor Langley and Board Member Matters do not have this same concern? What is unique about you both that differentiates you? We realize that Ed Gilbert’s “What are you trying to hide?” question was indelicate. But, if there is really nothing to hide why would you be opposed to financial disclosure?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: You mentioned that the Ethics Board has been inflexible. Don’t we want an Ethics Board that steers clear of your political interests and stands firm on values and principles? Don’t we want an Ethics Board that will be strictly non-political?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: The Ethics Board is comprised of members each of you appointed. Ms. Mangold that means Justine Spada serves on the Ethics Board as your appointee. Are you disappointed in her work? Ms. O’Brien: same question regarding your appointee – Jack Conway. Are you disappointed with his work on the Ethics Board? If you are why do they continue to serve? If you are not why did you reject their work and their recommendation?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: Isn’t it fair for voters to conclude that with all the research and all the work and all the brainstorming and the resources of an outside attorney paid for by tax payers that the Ethics Board knows more about an ethics code than you both do? If that’s a fair conclusion why did you reject their recommended ethics code?
Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: “WHY NOT THE BEST?”
(If anyone wants a better copy of the Draft Code, send an e-mail to eggadfly@yahoo.com and you'll get a .pdf copy in return.)
Is there really a conflict when the Board acts to hire a licensed engineer as a consultant?
ReplyDeleteNo one has any idea what the Supervisor thinks about this topic. Could you make any sense of his comments?
Anon 9:29: that's the point. Without ethics and disclosure we have no idea if there is a confict or not. It needs to be regulated to remove good people from unwarrented suspicion. Appropriate ethics laws answer taxpayers questions and protect our elected officials and employees from suspicion.
DeleteAs for the Supervisor, what I heard is that he is in favor of a public hearing on this proposal and open to considering any other proposals that come forward as well.
After watching the videos it is apparent how very low the standards are in this town. Councilperson O'Brien is afraid to "set the bar too high". Too high for whom? Herself? And Councilperson Mangold bold faced lied. She claimed she recused herself on any votes that benefit her and/or her family. Does she need to be reminded she voted for her brother to be an approved contracted engineer for the town?
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Code of Ethics DOES set the ethics bar too high for Councilperson O'Brien and Councilperson Mangold. At least we know that BEFORE O'Brien takes another run in 2013...for the town board or the county. At least we have her disclosure that the bar should not be set "too high" regarding ethics in government. It's too bad she disagrees with our current Governor who strongly believes in ethics in government.
Leads one to wonder what Councilpersons O'Brien and Mangold fear with a high standard of ethics.
How very sad Councilpersons O'Brien and Mangold are.
The proposed ethics code calls for disclosure of financial information, which includes anything in which you own a 5% or more stake in. This is very personal information and to think that a councilperson, should have to disclose this information is ludicrous. These people get paid 10K per year to put in nearly fulltime hours to do a thankless job which pays a part time wage. Obviously, these people are not doing this for the money,they are doing it because they think they can make a difference and maybe even enjoy it. They are doing us a service and to ask them to reveal very personal information could very well raise the bar to a level that many qualified people would be unwilling to meet, now and in the future. Don't we want successful people, who have good business sense, running this town?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I have never seen the codes from other area towns, but do they have to disclose this kind of information?
Dear Anonymous 7:45 AM:
ReplyDeleteI refer you to the October 2010 Town Board Meeting Minutes. That resolution (161-2010) contains language to direct the Ethics Board to promulgate rules and regulations "including but not limited to financial disclosure provisions."
That resolution was unaminously agreed to by then Town Board members McCabe, Matters AND O'Brien.
The Ethics Board has done and is doing EXACTLY what Resolution 161-2010, passed unamimously by the Town Board, including Ginny O'Brien instructed the Ethics Board to do.
Anony @ 7:45.... How much money people in public office make directly from their public office pay is not the point of Ethics laws. It's the potential for the use of that office (from inside information, influence on decisions, letting contracts, etc.) to "provide unwarranted privilege or exemption" to oneself or others. Sometimes these connections reap vast rewards.
ReplyDeleteAnon. 10:03 AM, exactly! Mr. Matters and Supervisor Langley have no problem with financial disclosure, yet Mangold and O'Brien do. As a citizen asked at the Town Meeting, "what do you have to hide?" All of this is a bunch of nonsense. Elected officials do financial disclosures all the time. There is a cloud of suspicion that hovers over the majority board. The Ethics Code only confirms it. They campaign on transparency and stall when they are called out on it.
ReplyDeleteAlso someone stated that councilpersons do nearly a full time job and get paid 10K for a thankless job. I believe that is an over statement. Really, they put in nearly 40 hours a week doing the towns business? Perhaps a raise is deserving if the town was not in debt and the town received favorable audits. Too much crap has been found out in the past few years to give the town board a resounding thank you. I will give exception to Rick Matters.
Anonymous who just submitted the comment with "Real Estate. One stop payoff." in it would just re-word a few things and tone it down, I just might post it. Sounds intriguing.
ReplyDeleteLike I said, Anonymous, what you are asserting is indeed very intriguing. I think what you need to do is gather some very specific facts and get them into the hands of the proper authorities. I can't post an insinuation from someone I don't know and can't verify. If you have some specific information, send me an e-mail at eggadfly@yahoo.com
ReplyDeleteIn part of her explanation for her "No" vote on the ethics code public hearing Board Member Mangold asserted that in a small town we do not need an ethics code - especially an ethics code with a financial disclosure provision.
ReplyDeleteIn USA Today last week there was an article describing the fraud perpetrated by an employee of Dixon, IL - a town of 16,000 residents - almost identical in size to East Greenbush.
We have local examples as well - Kinderhook and other local towns.
In every audit done of East Greenbush the lack of internal controls is mentioned by the auditors. The lack of internal controls means there is even more valid reasons for an ethics code with a well written financial disclosure provision.
At the very begining, Sue Mangold states that she "is not against an ethics law".
ReplyDeleteWhat video did you watch?
Interesting that the State Comptroller's Model Code lacks a financial disclosure requirement. Isn't this the same State Comptroller who has been so often quoted elsewhere in the past as the expert on all matters?
A Gadfly Editor's note: The one specific direction that the Town Board gave the newly appointed Ethics Board in the October 2010 resolution "tasking" the Ethics Board was to draft provisions on Financial Disclosure. Seems to me that the Ethics Board did just that.
DeleteGreetings:
DeleteThe State Comptroller's Model Code does include (in Section 5) a "Disclosure of interest in legislation and other matters" provision.
Specifically, the Model Code (in Section 2, Paragraph (c)) defines "Interest" as follows...
"A municipal officer or employee is deemed to have an interest in any private organization when he or she, his or her spouse, or a member of his or her household, is an owner, partner, member, director, officer, employee, or directly or indirectly owns or controls more than 5% of the organization's outstanding stock."
I hope this is helpful.
Right on "the money" Tom!! Why would the Code spend any time or space defining "interest" or who a "relative" is or what a "controlling interest" is if it were not to be disclosed? I believe that the financial disclosure contemplated is not necessarily to be published in the newspaper, but would probably be filed with the Ethics Board and available to the public. Just like the financial disclosures we filed year after year after year as public employees. It should be no big deal. If such a disclosure would raise a question as to one's ability to function as a public officer, perhaps that person should not be a public officer. That is, after all, exactly what the test is.
DeleteThe October 2010 resolution on the Ethics Board and the requirement that they create an ethics code to include a financial disclosure provision passed unamimously.
ReplyDeleteBoth Superisor McCabe AND Ginny O'Brien voted in favor of it.
Should that simple fact end the controversy?
What might I see missing here?
Ray, "what might I see missing here", poses a good question. Apparently the majority board bit off more than they can chew. In hindsight they didn't expect to lose the support of McCabe. They are still playing the same game, but with some adjustments. E.G. Gadfly, we still have the same town attorney. Would his responsibilities include advising the board members on financial disclosure as related to the Ethics Code?
ReplyDeleteI saw the video and Council Persons Mangold and O'Brien looked very uncomfortable listening to the citizens talk. They have become overly confident sitting in their high chairs. How dare an official say the town is protected because five people are sitting on the board. One man gave out over two hundred thousand dollars in stipends, how is our town protected? Money taken from W/S Fund and not paid back, how is our town protected? Sewage Management not up to specs, how is our town protected? Town Park waters are polluted still, how is our town protected? Board members have Family conflict of interests, how is our town protected? Just because we are a small town and some people know everyone, doesn't mean our town is protected. No way is the town protected when it's payrolls are filled with family members. Unfavorable audits, how is our town protected?
These are only a few examples of why only the best Ethics Code will protect our town.
Dear First Observer:
ReplyDeleteThe Ethics Board was provided with the services of an outside attorney at taxpayer expense.
So, the Ethics Board had access to legal advice throughout the process of drafting the ethics code thay have recommended to the Town Board but not through the Town's attorney.
Really! Who was that? How much was paid?
DeleteFirst Observer, you refer to the Sewage Management issue. Isn't this the same issue which has existed with almost same conditions and problems for over eleven years? I think it would be interesting to know the names of the five people on the Board in those years to see just who it was that was "protecting our Town." And for that matter, I think it would be interesting to know the names of the people on the Planning Board over those years to see who was there too. Isn't Planning Board responsible for recommending development and reviewing environmental impact? They keep promising transparency, but when you start looking, they clam up.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand. If the resolution was simply to have a public hearing to get the public's input on the resolution and the resolution could be modified thereafter, why not hold the hearing and do the will of the people. if enough people agreed with Ms. Mangold and Ms. O'Brien, I'm sure the code would be modified accordingly and if not, it would be defeated. It seems they used an awful lot of words to simply say no. East Greenbush should be held to the same standard as any town and the disclosure piece I don't believe is asking for privileged information regarding amounts of money, only noting the percentage ownership of a company. It has been suggested in the past that applications should note the owners of a project being presented so it can be openly noted if there is a conflict of interest for a board member. This is fundamental stuff. Why not just approve the public hearing. And why was Mr. Malone absent for something that seems to be important?
ReplyDeleteMs. OBrien referred to "things we would want to see" - meaning the Town Board. Doesn't the Ethics Code belong to the people of the Town, meaning that it should state the things that protect the PEOPLE, not the BOARD? What is so hard about this? The Board is not supposed to be some privileged class is it? Reminds me of something I heard a long time ago....people get elected and begin to think that they were anointed.
ReplyDeleteSorry Ray, I meant could the town attorney be advising the Town Board on financial disclosure, as related to the Ethics Code? I would guess his responsibilities would be to advise the town board on matters concerning town business.
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 8:17 PM:
ReplyDeleteAt the September 2011 public meeting between the Town Board and the Ethics Board the Town Board stated that they (the Town Board) would give the Ethics Board the written changes the Town Board wanted to see in the revised ethics code.
As far as we know to this very day that has not happened.
In the 1974 version of the ethics code the Ethics Board has an advisory responsibility to the Town Board.
I think the question to ask right now is:
Is the Town Board interested in a real ethics code or only in their own personal and political interests?
If the Town Board is interested in a real ethics code they have had one right in front of them, recommended by the Ehics Board they appointed, since June 2011.
Councilperson Mangold states in the video that 'we responded with many questions and many concerns that we had. we did not hear back in any type of format that looked anything like the amendment the majority of the board was happy with"
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous 7:00 AM
ReplyDeleteWhat we know is that different members of the Town Board and the Town Attorney met with Jack Conway representing the Ethics Board.
We know that the Town Board took steps to avoid triggering the Open Meetings requirements of the Open Government Law. Jack Conway explained, in his remarks, why that made sense.
The Ethics Board, as has been explained, approached their work with diligence and excellent research.
The Town Board is opposed to the recommended ethics code and very clearly wants an ethics code that their very own Ethics Board is not prepared to endorse or recommend. Why do you think that is?
This process has been dragging out since June 2011. Why do you think this has taken so long?
The Town Board and the Town Attorney has taken extraordinary steps to keep the recommended version of the ethics code out of the public domain despite a ruling from the Committee on Open Government that it be released. The Town Attorney, at the March meeting, made material misrepresentations of fact to explain the town's position. Why do you think that is?
The blog article that has triggered these comments contains a series of questions. I think we would all learn a lot and end the confusion if Ms. Mangold and Ms. O'Brien would address themselves to these questions. Do you think these two Town Board members will ever answer these simple questions?
They maybe simple questions. My answer to this is that It would get in their way. So THEY wouldn't want to run again.
DeleteTHEY MEANING .. MANGOLD, MALONE, O'BRIEN
I would call the attention of Anonymous @ 7:00AM to the remarks of Jack Conway at the Board meeting. (YouTube link above) Jack suggests that it was the job of the Ethics Board to Propose, and the Town Board to Dispose. The Ethics Board submitted a document which was the result of significant work, with the advice and counsel of outside legal counsel. The document contained the specific content which was the subject of the Town Board's resolution tasking the Ethics Board - Financial Disclosure.
ReplyDeleteWe apparently now have a Town Board majority which wants an Ethics Law which does not include Financial Disclosure. And I wouldn't doubt that there is significant arm twisting being attempted behind the scenes to get the Ethics Board to submit something (without Financial Disclosure) that the Town Board could "rubber-stamp" without asserting its own position.
Financial Disclosure is the heart of Ethics Codes. If there isn't anything shady going on, disclosure of financial interests should not be a problem for anyone. Without disclosure, suspicions can abound - which is exactly the situation we find ourselves in right now.
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
Really! Who was the outside legal counsel? How much was paid?
DeleteI believe the firm was Girvin and Ferlazzo. I have no information as to the fee. Might I suggest that you join some of the rest of us and join the FOIL brigade.
DeleteTaken from a recent Times Union Article
ReplyDeleteAt a recent public meeting, JCOPE's executive director, Ellen Biben, stated: "I think the governor and the Legislature in enacting the statute and establishing the commission made it very clear that ethics is a statewide priority and that's very clearly the mandate of the commission and that's what we intended to meet."
Ms. Biben has it exactly right.
Ethics rules need to be enforced statewide. For far too long, ethics enforcement has been focused on activities in Albany. Unfortunately, there are all too many examples to demonstrate that while public corruption may involve Albany officials, the corruption actually takes place back in those officials' home districts.
To even think, because we are a small community, know our neighbors and our kids go to school together, that that's a good excuse for thinking, corruption can not be taking place in our local government.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Ethics-must-rule-across-N-Y-3436391.php#ixzz1tHZkv7Oo
This is only slightly off the subject, but if you check the Department of State website, it looks like our Town Board member Malone is no longer among the licensed Notaries Public in New York. Remember the hearing was postponed twice. I'm betting it was settled with a surrender of license in exchange for not pursuing the charge of threatening an official in pursuit of his/her duty. Might be worth a further look??? Do your search on this link:
ReplyDeletehttp://appext9.dos.ny.gov/lcns_public/lic_name_search_frm
In the light of the apparent revelations from the search of the link above, it would be instructive to go to the link below and read the complaint against Mr. Malone related to his Notary performance. It appears that he is no longer listed among the Notaries Public licensed by the state of New York. Perhaps he will, some time in the future, give the taxpayers of East Greenbush an explanation of the resolution of the matter.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eastgreenbushblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/malone-reportfor-your-reviewcopied-and.html
You can draw your own conclusions as to whether an argument exists in this matter related to the need for a strong Ethics Law for our public officers.
Notary Public - ??? Who cares ?? They are a dime a dozen and there's no financial benefit to being a Notary....
DeleteOkay, So is this just a temporary fix to the wrongs our Council person has preformed or is it for a life. This person makes a deal to get out of trouble by giving up his license of Notary and we have him still on our town board. ( that is a great representtation for our town isn't it!) We look like we are cheats liers and theifs.
ReplyDeleteAre we now to believe that he has our best intrest at heart? I just am never surprised of what we have running our town and making decisions for us Were is that Ethics code ?
They had the ordasity to throw stones at Mike Cristo.
To give lame excuses as to why it was not a good idea to wear to hats. Give me a break.
I just wonder what tomorrow brings for this sad town.
We have people that make their own rules as they go along. Change things to benifit themselves and run this town like they own it.
WANTED BADLY !!!: NEW Majority Board Members: To serve the town and the people. NOt just themselves and their cronies. People to follow the law to the full extent. Okay.. I suppose that add couln't go in cause noone could follow that law.. so we just won't put that in there. It is asking too much.
In the big scale of things Phil Malone's Notary violations might seem not that important. He violated his Notary oath of office by saying he witnessed signatures he never did.
ReplyDeleteBUT... there's the potential for election fraud in all that. There's Malone's casual disregard for proper procedures. There's Malone deliberately violating his oath of office because it was both easy and convenient for him to do so.
And there's his shameful, immature and irresponsible response to the state employee looking into the Notary violations.
Do we need the ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board?
How can anyone argue we don't ?
Gotta agree with 9:18. Who cares?!?!
ReplyDeleteHe esplaned it as a mistake and I'll take it at that.
When your a Notary you don't make a mistake with your signature. You either follow the law concerning a Notary Public or you don't. If anyone has his or her Notary license taken from them, it says a lot about their character.
ReplyDeleteCrazy thinking, two town board members were removed two yrs. ago and the majority board remains with ethical issues. With our majority board seeking the least ethical standards, perhaps they might consider renaming our town to LEAST GREENBUSH. I can hear it now, hey you people up there on the hill, you stink!
Anonymous 1:44 PM Seems like you go with the flow like the majority board. Might you be of the same cloth? To over look a wrong to make it right doesn't seem like good judgement to me.
ReplyDeleteMaybe your judgement is altered by some other motive.
Sounds like bad choices again by a person that would rather turn their head and look the other way.
1:44, who cares? I do and I'll tell you why. It was a complete disregard for a process. He took a simple oath and willingly and blatantly violated it, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't matter that Notaries are a dime a dozen, this particular notary, Phil Malone, promised under oath to do certain things, in this case, simply witness and verify that the person signing a document was actually that person. There is no substitute for that responsibility. If this was a witness for your will or a business transition and it got called into court, it would cause a whole series of problems for you.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, Phil Malone, lied, violated an oath and now sits on a board where he helps make decisions about your Town and your taxes. It was immature, irresponsible and it was a corner cutting way to get into office, all the while professing that he did nothing wrong. Apparently the Department of State felt otherwise. Don't forget, he threatened a state employee to use his connections to squash it as well. If we keep lowering our standards for the people we have in office, you will have little more than inmates running the asylum and I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in an asylum!
Why can't they just run the right way and win or lose move on, no tricks, no illegal maneuvering. Phil Malone has proven to be a liar and just another empty shirt who wants to suck off the system. He conducts himself like a spoiled child who wants what he wants and to hell with everyone else and apparently the rules. What is worse is his party including Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold seem to condone and endorse his actions because they reap the benefits of his working for the party. I guess his Mom is going to have to double time it around town to save his hide next time.
Phil Malone is symptomatic of what is wrong with this country!
So on your summary of that their is no monatary benifits of a Notary. They are a dime a dozen. Are we to assume that Malone is only caring about his monatary benifits of council person for East Greenbush.
ReplyDeleteMaybe Mike and Phil should have said that they took the oath as legislators as a mistake. Then O'Brien and McCabe could have over looked that and we could have moved on. The both guys would have had their seats back. You have to see the double standard here.. do as I say not as I do.
Is it true that this is the second time Phil committed voter fraud? If so, how did he get away with it the first time?
ReplyDeleteFrom reading the posts above, I get the attitude of those that would rather turn their heads and act like this didn't happen. It's no big deal. Their is no value in a Notary. Dime a dozen. Now that shows some loyal taxpayers ideas of how the town should be run. It is See no evil hear no evil speak no evil. Well, it happened and we need to face the truth. This person broke the law. He made a deal to reliquest his license. That in itself shows guilt. I guess if you look at the majority town board you could say the same. NO value in thier lame desions while they hold the town hostage to moving forward to real honest and truthful goverment.
ReplyDeleteCover up.. that is how.. like things have been done time and time again in this town.
ReplyDeleteEthics - Notary violation - Phil Malone + Conflicts of Interest
ReplyDeleteJoan Malone - Town Hall employee
Surely intelligent people can see the connection
Ethics - Conflicts of Interest - Sue Mangold - no vote on ethics
Surely intelligent people can see the connection
Ethics - Conflicts of Interest - Ginny O'Brien - no vote on ethics
Mike O'Brien - Town Hall employee
Surely intelligent people can see the connection
Rick Matters, Keith Langley - no conflicts of interest, no family members in Town Hall jobs, no oath of office violations and yes votes on the ethics code.
Surely intelligent people can see all thse connections.
The Notary license is a bigger deal than some realize. Notaries use the license to verify and notarize many types of documents including mortgages, exchanges of property, foreign bills of sale, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just about politics it is about understanding the law and understanding what it means when you take an Oath. Phil Malone boasts that he "attended law school". Yet he cannot properly conduct himself and work within the confines of a simple Notary License. This is the same brain trust that is making decisions regarding OUR money.
When a person cannot abide by an Oath, a legal Oath, that he voluntarily took, how can we expect any ethical actions/decisions to be made by such person? How can such person have the audacity to question ANY Ethics Code.
One more thing I would like to point out---I am a registered Independent. The last 2 elections Ann Taylor showed up at my door and politely asked me to sign the petition. She verified my signature and had me swear to my identity. I have not heard one peep about any balogna with her license. The Board Majority had the nerve to call her boss and complain about her running for the town board and this same group of snakes center their elections around a sniveling, conniving man, Phil Malone. Ann has her license, where is your Phil?
How sad this voting population is.
Has Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold answered one single question asked in this article?
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this article I liked it. It was not a personal attack. It simply asked a series of what I felt were very interesting and very appropriate questions of those Town Board members - O'Brien and Mangold - who voted "No" on the ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board.
I fear all the citizens of East Greenbush are about to get a political snookering by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone. The three of them seem to, as Ed Gilbert asked, have things to hide.
It fascinates me. No one - ever - has questioned Rick Matters or Keith Langley on any conflict of interest issue or any ethical issue. Not once; not ever.
But week in and week out there is some highly questionable issue swirling around O'Brien, Mangold and Malone. If it is not stipends it is something else. Lately it is a decent ethics code.
We elected, it seems, three people with no moral or ethical compass of any kind. They should be, but are not, ashamed of themselves. We, the voters, should be even more ashamed we put them in office. We deserve better; we really do.
I think perhaps the majority board would not wish to have a public hearing on the new Ethics Code Draft because it would be difficult to answer the questions Ray Mooney poses in this article. The Ethics Code may be the greatest challenge they have come up against. O'Brien and Mangold's no votes are already public record and Malone will have to give account on the matter soon.
ReplyDeleteLet's see, O'Brien tried to reduce the salary of our new Supervisor, bad, bad decision. Now she can't vote for a public hearing on the ethics code. Hmmm, seems to have a problem with financial disclosure. Sure would like to know the problem with that one. You don't have to wonder why Rick matter doesn't have a problem with financial disclosure. He has been on the board recently more years than Ms. O'Brien. Rick Matters is the guy that has the most integrity on the board. He has NOTHING to lose by supporting the current ethics code. He also knows that the town has a lot to gain when the ethics code is passed.
My thanks to the Ethics Board, Rick Matters and Supervisor Keith Langley. Stand strong together, we are counting on you. Please do not cave in to reducing the ethics code into something less than it was intended to be.
The one thing we need to remember in all the talk about Ethics Laws is that they exist PRIMARILY to provide citizens with the tools to keep an eye on public officers. They do not exist for the convenience (or "privacy" for goodness sake) of the public officer.
ReplyDeleteLooks to me like the Board majority wants to turn the legislative intent of the public officers law on its head. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
They couldn't follow the ethics law and that is why they don't want it. Malone is a great example of that. Look at his past record. They are not about to open up and give a reasonable honest answser to anyone. O'Brien, Mangold and Malone are surely serving the public with one thing in mind. What they can get out of it for their own personal gain. Look if that Ethics code was already in force I would think that Malone would be gone from the Board, or on his way out the door. The idea of not having family and friends working in town hall. They need all those perks.
ReplyDeleteAs I am typing this. This came to mind. I still have one question.. Does anyone yet have a job discription in Town Hall?
Lets face it folks, these people have so much power they are not going to bend to anyone. You will not hear one word on Malone or anything pertaining to this matter in Town Hall from the lips of
our Majority Board members.
So keep on plugging along.. I think we have a new Election coming up this Novemeber .. So maybe one more down and two more to go..
Our vote seems to speak volumns. So lets keep that in mind.
If having election petition signatures notarized is, as Mr. Malone keeps asserting, no big deal why is it the law?
ReplyDeleteThere has to be a pretty good reason the state made having petitions notarized a requirement. Does the Democratic Party absentee ballot forged singatures and fraud in Troy ring any bells?
And, if it is no big deal, as Mr. Malone and his supporters continue to claim, why the effort to postpone the hearing until after the election? Why the effort to hide everything from the public?
Information is knowledge and knowledge is power. O'Brien, Mangold and Malone know that perfectly. And for all three of them hiding what they don't want the public to know is critical to their political success.
Get with it folks. That's our Town Board majority at work.
Ms. Mangold, the ethics code and financial discloure are the reason the recommended ethics code got voted down. Ms. Mangold cannot have out in public her multiple and overlappng conflicts of interest.
Look, it is wonderful that the entire Hart family of companies is successful. That's not the problem. The problem is that Ms. Mangold has to choose between representing ALL the citizens of our town versus representing her family's financial interests. And when it comes down to those choices Ms. Mangold's interests compete and she is faced with conflcts of interest. That is just reality.
So, here's a prediction...
We will shortly see a new draft of an ethics code. It will be "cleansed" to suit the majority and Ms. Mangold in particular on the financial discloure requirement. It will bear no resemblance to the ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board.
You are reading it all here. Stay tuned.
Ginny O'Brien's husband and son-in-law are in appointed positions with the Town. Sue Mangold's brother is an appointed engineer consultant for the town. Phil Malone's mom holds an appointed job with the town. Phil Malone lost his Notary license due to fraudulently notarizing petitions. Sue Mangold is against financial disclosure for elected town officials.
ReplyDeleteNo way can this group ever vote on an effective Ethics Code. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. Would we really want an Ethics Code approved by this majority? Any Ethics Code approved by this majority will be a stripped down version of anything with substance.
What is even sadder than all of this....these people are elected by the voting population. Come November 2013, Ginny will slither out of anything dirty or controversial that she is attached to. That is how it goes in this town. This majority will do all the unethical things this year knowing the voting population will forget by Nov 2013.
Phil Malone claims the Notary license is "no big deal". Maybe we should be asking Toni Murphy, EG Receiver of Taxes, her thoughts regarding the issue. She holds the license and she abides by the rules governing the Notary Public. Does she believe her Notary license is "no big deal" and would she feel it was "no big deal" if she lost it? Somebody that loses their Notary license due to fraudulent activities (same as the Troy voter fraud case) has no business weighing in on an Ethics Code. It is probably best if he remains absent from any meetings discussing an Ethics Code.
Do not forget to ask Mr. Malone about his feelings on the current ethics code draft at the next Town Board Meeting. Mangold and O'Brien gave their lame excuses, let's hear Malone's. If the Ethics Board waters the current draft down to suit the majority board, than I would consider the Ethics Board void of existence. I would not have respect for any of them. Also I would help pay for the story to be printed in the Advertiser as the town should be made aware of this type of nonsense, in the event it should happen.
ReplyDeleteSomeone who can explain the story about Malone losing his Notary License due to fraud, and yet he can still vote on the
ReplyDeleteTown Board pertaining to the Ethics Code, should inform the Troy Record.
I bet Paul Vandenburg would also enjoy this story.
By the way, why did Malone's mother give the petitions to Phil to notarize. She knew that was against the law. She should lose her license too. Boy, that apple didn't fall far from the tree.
ethics.Code.
I think they made a plea bargain deal. He gave up his Notary license and they didn't go after him for threatening the investigating officer. He gets to walk with "minimal" damage, and DOS has no further expenses.
ReplyDeleteOn their blog they are claiming "nobody has beaten Ginny". Contrar--Mr. Matters beat her in 2009, quite handily too. They are claiming "young people admire her for her honesty". She is a slithering liar. If all recall, she claimed the internal audit was good, she claimed that before the election. A few days after the 2010 election we found out the audit was horrible. There findings showed a lack of internal controls in addition to a few other things. They claim seniors love her. I know a whole group of seniors who cannot stand her because they see her for the lying politician she is. Nobody is thrilled with her for playing nepotism with her husband and son-in-law. Plus, seniors know her history. Ginny O'Brien is a huge part of the ethics problem. She is their band leader and if she won't approve this Code of Ethics none of them will. Even if they did approve the Code of Ethics who is there to enforce it? Them? To expect them to hold themselves accountable is a bit much. If a complaint is lodged against an elected official, who enforces the code? Who forces them to take action against wrongdoing?
ReplyDeleteMs. O'Brien was a darn good politician in her heyday. She works to keep herself in the public eye in positive ways through meaningless photo ops.
ReplyDeleteGinny O'Brien has made some interesting political miss steps recently.
When the stipend issue blew up she said in the Troy Record that perhaps the Town Board should have paid more attention to the budget. You think?
When she and Mangold and Malone tried to screw newly elected Supervisor Langley over on his salary she came up with some amazing story about his pay being cut because of his lack of experience. Nasty politics at work? You think?
On the ethics code discussion at the April meeting she offered that we will not have any candidates for political office if the citizens of our town have a true and meaningful ethics code. Not very logical at all. And why not just let the voters and tax payers worry about that? We are all big girls and boys. If we run out of candidates for town board because we have a great ethics code I am pretty sure we can see ourselves through that situation. Don't you think?
Ginny's term expires in 2013. It seems time for some new thinking and new blood to change the path our town has been these last too many years. Sometimes it just makes sense for a change and, for my vote anyway, and for Ginny O'Brien, that time cannot come soon enough.
Printed below is an e-mail sent by Ray Mooney to Jack Conway and the Town Board following the Monday evening meeting of the Ethics Board.
ReplyDeleteAn updated article on the Ethics issue will be forthcoming once we see how the May Town Board meeting advances or retards the ethics code process. Will the Town Board advance or retard the ethics code enactment process?
From: Raymond Mooney
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 8:42 AM
To: 'Jack Conway'
Cc: 'klangley@eastgreenbush.org'; 'ginny@logical.net'; 'Rick Matters'; 'Sue Mangold'; 'malone3155@yahoo.com'
Subject: Last Night
Jack, I want to share some observations with you about last night’s Ethics Board meeting. I would be appreciative if you would pass these comments on to the other Ethics Board members.
Last night’s applause from the members of the public in attendance was not planned or staged. It was spontaneous, genuine and very real. And that applause was for two very significant reasons. One is to simply recognize and honor the outstanding and excellent work done by the Ethics Board. And the second reason was to honor the PROCESS by which the Ethics Board has done its work.
Very few organizations get both the content and the process so right or so well balanced. Very few organizations get “what” they do and “how” they do it into such perfect harmony.
The public active participation level is unprecedented. Not having to submit FOILs for documents is so completely refreshing. And all that, and much more, was in evidence last night. Some part of the spontaneous reaction was the larger than normal number of members of the public in attendance. But more of it is simply because the level of engagement not only allowed but encouraged by the Ethics Board gives people what they so desperately want…a government body that is responsive; that is not just pretending to listen but clearly actually actively listening. The Ethics Board achieves almost automatic taxpayer buy in to the work you are doing by engaging with the public as the Ethics Board has since that very first meeting so very long ago now.
The history of the long, long process that remains unfinished after almost a full year now to give the public the honest protection of a sound and decent ethics code was enlightening, fascinating even. If the April Town Board was any indication the next steps in the process will be as well.
Sincerely,
Ray
Dear Ms. Mangold and Ms. O'Brien:
ReplyDeleteI hate to tell you this but you've got it all wrong - all wrong.
The ethics code is to protect the citizens of our town; it is not to protect you!
Get over yourselves will you please.
You appointed the gosh darn Ethics Board. Either accept their ethics code recommendation or fire them for not doing their job.
By the way...I looked at the 2010 Resolution. Tell us...how do you plan to squirm your way around the inconvenient fact that the resolution requires financial disclosure?
"People who love sausage and respect the law should never watch either one being made."
ReplyDeleteWhoever coined that phrase must have been at the April Town Board meeting.
Sue Mangold and Ginny O'Brien went well beyond partisanship. Hell, they were representing themselves not the people who elected them. We, the PEOPLE, want and need an ethics code.
We, the PEOPLE, are in the unfortunate position of needing selfish, self centered politicians, like Mangold and O'Brien, who have family members taking taxpayer money, to support the ethics code law we, the PEOPLE, want and need.
The 11:52 AM comment is right on.
Sausage, when it is made badly, stinks to high heaven. So do Ms. Mangold and Ms. O'Brien if they continue to stonewall the ethics code process and the ethics code recommended by our representatives - our Ethics Board.
I was extremely happy to be able to attend the Ethics Board meeting Monday evening. Their thoughts and insights were refreshing to listen to. They came across as politically neutral in discussing the Ethics Code Draft. It does not favor a political party, but truly represents the best interest of the people they represent, the town's citizens. People in leadership need to be accountable to someone and how can they if they make the rules? No water please.
ReplyDeleteRay made a good point stating, what makes Mangold and O'Brien different from Langley and Matters who have no problem with financial disclosure? I am sure people from both parties can easily answer that question, but the answer should come from those to whom it is addressed. My perspective is Langley and Matters do not bring any baggage to the table. They are in favor of adopting an ethics code, that very few citizens would have a problem having their elected officials follow.
At the 2011 meeting the Town Board had with the Ethics Board, I got the feeling that the Majority Board were going to ride shotgun over the Ethics Board. Not sure how this will all play out now, but this I know, I now have less respect for Mangold and O'Brien and considerable more respect for the Ethics board.
I have read everything I can on this issue. Here's the thing...
ReplyDeleteOur entire system of government is based on a system of checks and balances. That system of checks and balances prevents tyranny where one branch of government becomes too dominant.
Open public meetings and the Freedom of Information Law is a partial check and balance.
At the municipal level an ethics code and the Ethics Board is our local equivilent of another check and balance. The Town Board cannot do anything it wants when there is a decent ethics code and a functioning Ethics Board.
I think if the majority, especially O'Brien and Mangold, refuse to accept or if they water down the recommended ethics code voters will know for certain that at least those individuals have no intention of being held accountable for their own ethical behavior.
I think it is a frightening prospect that the Town Board majority is refusing to accept the recommended ethics code. I looked at the UTube videos. I read everything on this blog. The excuses and explanations put forward by O'Brien and Mangold frighten me.
They are, for all intents and purposes, telling both the Ethics Board and citizens: "Screw you; we are the majority and we will do damn well what we please".
I don't care what your political party happens to be that is not good, fellow citizens.
I know that is not the Town Board attitude I want and O'Brien and Mangold are, for sure, not representing me or what I know is best for our town. I hope they see the light and change their position but based on their arrogance and attitude I doubt that will happen.
I have not been able to attend most meetings but from what I have been reading. I have more respect for the Ethics board then our majority board.
ReplyDeleteMaybe they might want to consider on running for town board.
Maybe then just then we could have a Ethics code that would represent the tax payers and not the majority board.
I came across this and wanted to share.
ReplyDeletePlease post.
So fitting for our Majority Town Board.
Diapers and Politicans
should be changed often.
Both for the same reason.
This certainly belongs on the Town Ethics Post thread. It's the Decision by the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct related to our (former?) Town Justice, Diane Schilling. Here's the link:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/S/Schilling.Diane.L.2012.05.08.DET.pdf
This is a great example of ticket-fixing -- probably one of the most common examples of judges' misconduct on the local level. It is interesting reading, and I urge all to read it -- because it also reveals the tremendous pressure other employees -- in this case -- police on the local and state level -- are under to cave to pressure from the "higher-ups" to look the other way.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is just exactly why we need a code of ethics for our Town. Does it have to be spelled out in simple English ad nauseum?
Next week's Town Board meeting has the public hearing on the ethics code finally scheduled.
ReplyDeleteBased on Monday's Ethics Board meeting we can be certain that the ethics code under consideration wlll NOT be the version recommended by our Ethics Board.
As quickly as we can be will post a summary of the ethics code scheduled for the public hearing and we will provide as much additional detail as possible so citizens will have all the available facts and information. Our next report will include a summary of Monday's very interesting Ethics Board meeting.
Of special interest will be how Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Mangold deal with the 2010 Board Resolution that requires financial disclosure.
Stay tuned. We fought with the Town Attorney for almost a year trying to get the facts on the last version of an ethics code. Ethics, for O'Brien and Mangold, may be limited to their personal preferences but our commitment continues to be giving citizens as full and as accurate a report as possible.
Beyond the obvious ethical issues associated with soon to be former Judge Schilling's scandal is a message for Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold.
ReplyDeleteIt is a different day and a different time. Things that may have been acceptable 20 years ago are looked at differently today. In many ways standards are higher. And that's a good thing.
Bloating the town hall payroll with your family and friends is one example. Those days are more a part of the past than they are the present and certainly the future. Taxpayers cannot continue to support patronage and nepotism. Or we just don't care to because both are a part of the unsavory political past.
Custom crafting the ethics code recommended to you by your very own Ethics Board makes it look like, whether you like it or not, that you are both living in the past and actively trying to hide your own ethical shortcomings.
If you assert I am wrong about all this then show it by supporting the real ethics code the Ethics Board has recommended to you. It is that simple.
After all the talk, all the writing and all the blog comments I think the ethics code discussion comes down to a simple couple of questions:
ReplyDelete1.) Does the Ethics Board operate in the public interest OR because the Ethics Board members serve at the pleasure of the Town Board members should the Ethics Board serve the wishes of the Town Board?
2.) Should the ethics code be the code worked on, developed and recommended by the Ethics Board or the version that suits Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Magold's personal interests?
Be sure to read Ed Gilbert's Post on the TU blog related to the Ethics issue in East Greenbush. His question as to how you mitigate the conflict of interest risk without financial disclosure is THE central question. Are we supposed to depend on each individual's moral compass to address this problem? Perhaps we should ask a judge....
ReplyDeletehttp://blog.timesunion.com/eastgreenbush/risky-business/4498/
Call out to my fellow citizens. Judge Schilling's situation is a good example of why no candidate should run unopposed.
ReplyDeleteI read it. Here is what I have to say :
ReplyDeleteO'Brien is going to do this Ethics code O'Brien style.
We are going to see word change in that code of ethics. It will be done exactly how O'Brien wants it. It will protect the majority board and that is it.
Everyone knows all three have vested interest in business that are asociated with the town.
What's is very telling about this whole ethics thing is the fact that in the middle of an obvious ethics problem with Judge Schilling, the big mouths over at eastgreenbushtalks haven't said a word, not one word! They love to beat up on Don and Ray, but when their own people do something wrong, they can't speak! And this didn't even come from their opposition, this came from a judicial panel! Where is young Mr. Malone now, who went to law school. Where is Mrs. O'Brien who loves the camera and pretends to stand for good government. This is their girl and she got reprimanded by the State. Mrs. o'Brien said if we have too strict an ethics policy we won't be able to get anyone to run. Maybe they won't be able to get any of THIER people to run, but maybe we'd be able to get better people. Thanks Ginny! We knew you'd show your true colors eventually!
ReplyDeleteSome people are only interested in kicking, slapping, and foul mouthing citizens who are trying to make our elected officials accountable. They come to Town Board Meetings and say nothing, nadda, zilch, zippo, absolutely nothing constructive to the dialogue. They are not interested in what the majority board has to say. They are only looking for fuel to add to their raging citizen burning barbecue blog.
ReplyDeleteTheir silence 4:55am speaks volumes concerning what's wrong in our community. Strong ethics has been a melting pot issue for some time now. I can see elected officials wanting to blow off a strong ethics code, but tax paying citizens knocking it too.
Mr. Gadfly, you and others are doing the right thing. Elected officials need and should expect confrontation from time to time, it comes with the job.. A stand must be made in our town to speak up and continue to challenge the issues at hand regardless of the childish ridicule of those who don't give a dam.
Here's a question, might we see a hugh reporter at the next town board meeting? I'm sure he will want answers to some questions regarding supervisors and council persons neglecting the sewage plant problems. He could do a good story on the twenty thousand dollar fine the town is preparing to pay out. Maybe he will have a question or two for Mr. Malone.
Whenever O'Brien, Mangold and Malone have a choice between the high road and the low road they choose the low road.
ReplyDeleteThey disbanded the previous finance committee because that group of people were looking into things O'Brien, Mangold and Malone did not want touched.
Then their very own Ethics Board has taken the high road and created a good and decent ethics code that represents well the public interest.
And O'Brien and Mangold, at the April Town Board meeting, singled that they will, once again, take the low road. We will see that low road come to life Wednesday night or whenever they release their personal perferred version of a fake ethics code.
Pollution in the Hudson? Take the low road and pass the cost of fines onto taxpayers.
New Supervisor? Take the low road and screw him over.
It is getting disgusting to watch and listen to O'Brien and Mangold say one thing and then do something else - every single, damn time.
I was watching Meet the Press a little while ago. A commentator said: "Leadership is doing what's right even when it is hard or inconvenient."
ReplyDeleteHow do you think Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold measure up on that standard when it comes to our ethics code?
Who do you think they are putting first? Themselves and their personal interests or the public interest?
And how do you think the five members of our Ethics Board feel at this point? Thrown under the bus by O'Brien and Mangold is an understatement don't you think?
To May 12, 10:05 PM-A reporter is a great idea. How about getting someone from the Troy Record?
ReplyDeleteThe troy record is useless, no one reads the paper like they used to. A picture paints 1000 words, invite Bill Lamden back to the Town Board meeting. Encourage him to speak with the majority, they are the ones with the control and their pulse on the Town. Have him ask Ginny O'Brien about the judge, why ethics is not passed and why they insist on protecting the sewer plant despite the cost to tax payers. You can't reach people in this town with blogs, get it on TV, then they will pay attention.
ReplyDeleteI have read the Diane Schilling case report very carefully.
ReplyDeleteThe impression I have formed is that too many politicians in the majority think the law does not apply to them.
Phil Malone - Notary violation. No big deal - the law does not apply to him.
Diane Schilling - fixing tickets. No big deal - the law does not apply to her.
Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold - ethics code. No big deal. But they get to decide that ethics laws will not apply to them.
How's your confidence level East Greeinbush voters?
Feel good about O'Brien and Mangold to provide strong leadership all in the best interests of the public when it comes to ethics?
Yea right. Show up Wednesday night at 7 pm and see for yourself what a mockery they both make of the ethics code recommended to them by the Ethics Board.
If it were a joke this would be funny. But these people are making huge decisions that affect every voter and tax payer in East Greenbush. And the only thing Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold care about is themselves and maintaining their unfettered ability to run our town as they see fit to benefit themselves and their family members.
Makes you sick. It really does.
I'd like to know why Sgt. Condo wasn't called as a witness. Officer Boel gave him his copy of the ticket, and it cannot be found. Neither can all 3 of the remaining copies of the ticket. And the certified mail letter sent by Ms. Toomey to the Town Court can't be found either. This has got to be about more than Judge Schilling. Did she go around and collect and destroy the 4 copies of the ticket that were in the hands of the police department all by herself?
DeleteSomething is rotten here. No one person (Judge) can make a speeding ticket go away. There had to be cooperation from others, and it looks like the PD and the Town court helped.
Maybe Sgt. Condo wasn't called as a witness because he is a target.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be Ducky??? Do you think that the oversight/judicial system could be that efficient? When I read the record the obvious question to the Sgt. would seem to be "what did you do with the copy of the ticket that Officer Boel testified that he gave you?" It's either admitting to loosing it or taking the 5th.
DeleteJudge Schilling's Appeal to the Court of Appeals should make for interesting reading regarding the disappearing ticket copies and who caused them to disappear!!
ReplyDeleteThe agenda for the Wednesday meeting of the Town Board is up on the Town website. Of particular interest is the attached text of the 6th modification of the (poop) Order on Consent. Take a look at the fine numbers.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a point. Best way to have a ticket go away is to just have Officer Boel not show up at Court.
ReplyDeleteWhile I appreciate the fact that we can disagree on issues and have our own ideas of what should be done and how, I feel this blog and the people who run it have allowed character assassination to dominate the issues.
ReplyDeleteYou have a right to question public officials and bring their differences to light. However, the most recent accusations against Judge Schilling, Officer Condo and several members of the Board by unnamed individuals is disgusting. Why some people seem to take pleasure in ripping other people apart, knowing it has a negative effect on that persons family and friends, is beyond me.
As blog host, if people want to make inflmatory accusations against public oficials, you and the other hosts should, at least have the person making the accusations sign their name.
Ray, you and Don seem to have ideas about everything you feel is wrong with this town and how it is run. Maybe it's time to step up and consider running for the Town Board. Then you will truly get a feel for how the majority of residents feel about you.
Respectfully,
Joe
Joe....I think we have been fairly successful in managing a "temperate" blog here. There certainly are opinions expressed, but we do try to make sure that they are opinions which can be drawn on a set of facts which are on the public record. I'll give you an example of a couple of comments I just got which I did not post. The first stated that Sgt. Condo was called as a witness in the Schilling matter. Apparently this "anonymous" was unable to understand the meaning of this sentence in paragraph 17 on page 6 of the Determination: "Sergent Condo was not called as a witness at the hearing." The second "anonymous" comment asserted that the record showed that the State Police were called in on the matter. This was a complete misunderstanding of the facts in the Determination, which I believe states clearly that the State Police were involved in the first ticket which Judge Schilling got from a State Police officer.
DeleteI think the comments about Board members you refer to relate to the matter of the Ethics code which has yet to be acted upon. Like it or not, the facts indicate that this process has been "sat on" for a long time. And the reason offered by the majority on the Board for the delay are on the (video) public record.
I'd respectively suggest, Joe, that public accountability is a relatively new concept and commodity in our Town, and getting used to it is causing some discomfort to those who are supposed to be publicly accountable.
Don
Joe....I got to thinking about how it felt to be on the receiving end of a lot of crap that got aimed my way on the barf blog over the years, especially the stuff that got deleted in order to change the historical record. That crack at SGT. Condo was a bit over the line, even though it had its roots in the Determination by the CJC, so I've taken it down. I do, however, believe that the facts need further exploration. Those tickets went somewhere.
DeleteDear Joe:
ReplyDeleteI am following the recommendation made by President Obama:
"If people are paying attention, then we get good government and good leadership. And when we get lazy, as a democracy and civically start taking shortcuts, then it results in bad government and politics."
This blog, unlike another in town, does not refer to female residents as "Miss Giggle Giggle Boom Boom" or whatever the sexist references are to one of our female residents.
I am proud to openly and actively supporting our Ethics Board. I think they worked hard and did excellent work - don't you?
Ray---AMEN TO THAT!
ReplyDeleteBased on the hearing testimony, Officer Boel should be recognized as an ethical police officer and a positive example for the EGPD. Granted, when he administered the ticket he was not aware of what "SMA" meant on a license plate but, after he was informed he still processed his 4 portions of the 5 piece ticket as protocol dictates. He was not involved in destroying the ticket. Good for Officer Boel; based on the document's reportings, you are a credit to your profession. Maybe YOU should be the Deputy Chief!
ReplyDeleteWhere were the outraged people when Ann and Mike were being ripped apart during the 2010 election? Hardly any issues were being discussed just character assassination against them. The things said on the Talks Blog were so bad they deleted them. Joe, maybe you spoke up and said something about the harshness, I would like to think that you did. I remember things said about people that I considered disgusting myself. I was appalled at what took place during that election. Remember the sign that was put up at the Democratic Headquarters and later had to be taken down. I took a picture of it, unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying I agree with everything printed here, but take a good look at what's been happening in your own backyard. Anon. comments, comments using other peoples names, comments using names that make fun of others peoples names, ect. Few words would be spoken if everyone used their names on both blogs.
Good for you speaking your mind and backing it up with your name. Maybe you should consider running for a council seat. I would hope you would reflect the best interest in what is needed most in this town, extreme high ethical standards. If Don or Ray would run for a council seat, I believe if the town knew about their citizen involvement in holding our elected officials accountable, they would get a lot of support. They would have no problem meeting all the ethical standards in the current ethics code.
Joe, since you have been an active participant in the East Greenbush Talks blog, it takes a lot of nerve to suggest civility here. Mike Condo is an acknowledged creator of the blog and has never had the courage to comment publicly and has allowed the most critical comments to be posted, true or not. No one in the democratic camp had the courage to demand more civility and the blog actually posted information that was known to be completely false.
ReplyDeleteIt's fine if you want to stand for something better or defend your friends, but maybe you should look to your friends and remind them that the lengths they went to to protect their pensions and jobs, crossed the line. You reap what you sew. Try owning your own faults before you try correcting the faults of others. Mike Condo is obviously complicit in some manner according to the determination issued. He should be prepared to present the facts in an effort to minimize the damage to Diane Schilling. She didn't do this alone, by all accounts she wasn't able to. A good cop would have reminded her that it was wrong, it doesn't appear he did that. The tickets, after all, that ended up in HIS hands, disappeared. Maybe rather than crowing here, you should ask the good deputy Chief exactly what happened. I would argue that someone complicit in that act is unfit to serve as the deputy chief of the department. If Diane can't instruct judges on ethical conduct, he is unfit to help run the department.
One last thing, if you don't like what is being said here, don't read here. The truth hurts and this could get painful for some!
I hear that some people think that it is ok for the police to hand out tickets and then decide who should be prosecuted. We all know that there are times when someone is stopped and given a warning. But once a ticket is written there is a certain procedure that kicks in and people expect fair treatment. That does not mean that there is no discretion on the part of the issuing officer or the court to modify the charge or dismiss the ticket altogether. That is done all of the time. How many of you have had a ticket reduced to "parking on the pavement"? How many of you have had a ticket dismissed because the officer failed to show up at your hearing? Or failed
ReplyDeleteto issue a "supporting deposition"? The judge has discretion as well.
What we don't want is for tickets to disappear for some and not for others. Or to let someone with government plates break the law and get away with it while the little guy gets pulled over because someone has to "make quota."
Whether or not you agree with the comments about the police named in the Schilling determination,one thing is clear. A thorough investigation is needed to determine which officers participated in the cover-up and then they should be disciplined.
This entire blog reminds me what Abe Lincoln famously said:
ReplyDelete"To test a person's true character give them power."
O'Brien, Mangold and Malone use their power to give town jobs and other benefits to family and friends. That's an irrefutable fact.
Is that an abuse of power? You decide. Is patronage and nepotism helping make our town better or worse? You decide.
O'Brien and Mangold voted "No" on the ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board.
Coincidental to their family and friends conflicts of interest? You decide.
Langley and Matter have no family members on the town payroll.
They voted "Yes" on the ethics code. Coincidental? You decide.
Has Phil Malone deliberately avoided being open and truthful about his Notary violations? Hard to argue he has been at all open and truthful but you decide.
Have past Town Boards that included Kim Halloran, Joan Malone,and Ginny O'Brien supported the violation of various consent decrees and deceived voters when the resulting fines were paid for waste discharge into the Hudson River? You decide.
Did Deputy Chief Condo violate his oath of office? Did he abuse his power? We need an INDEPENDENT board or commission to investigate and decide that. Chief Lavin should be calling for exactly that right now and the Town Board needs to support an independent investigation that includes a conclusion and a recommendation.
Asking questions like Ms. Aiardo has done and this comment have tried to do is what Phil Malone has labeled as being a "gadfly".
Thanks to all those East Greenbush gadflys. Keep up the good work.
A few things that are spouted on the nasty blog that I don't understand and don't want to because to understand it means you can think like them which is not a place one should be.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that when evidence is produced they simply dismiss it and claim it's "no big deal". Phil Malone's notary is a big deal because it was taken from him by the State. Diane Schilling's ticket fixing is a big deal because she has been asked to leave the bench. The EG police Srgt "misplacing" tickets is a big deal because the "missing" ticket was the crux of the Schilling investigation. They can't stick with the facts as presented. They try to distract with personal attacks. Shouldn't Phil Malone try and address the sewer issue, he is the liaison to the DPW? Shouldn't Sue Mangold address the ticket issue, she is the liaison to the EGPD and shouldn't Ginny O'Brien be working closely with the Ethics Committee, after all Jack Conway (who has done a fine job) was her appointment to that committee and he is the Chairperson of that committee.
Much like Ginny hired a flower lady she is now looking to put Pete Stenson on the payroll. Where is THAT money going to come from, but then again, Pete should be able to find it because he IS the Chairperson of the Citizens Fiscal Advisory Committee.
I just read EG Talks and it seems like the Deputy is going out of his way to defend himself anonymously. I guess it's true what they say, a guilty conscious needs no accuser.
ReplyDeleteI find it ironic that the majority, who had all the answers on how to improve East Greenbush and never misses an opportunity in front of the camera, is no where to be found on the sewer story.
ReplyDeleteSince 2001, the board has been predominantly a democratic majority and they have repeatedly failed to address or fix this issue. Surely Phil Malone, the liaison to the DPW has an answer or Sue Mangold who was on the planning board the entire time and they continued to approve projects for friends, knowing there was a problem. Meanwhile they give our tax dollars to their friends for positions that aren't needed and then use our tax dollars to pay a fine that could easily be avoided by addressing the issue head on. Where is Ginny O'Brien now and where is her response?
Maybe you should print a list of the Town Board members AND the Planning Board members during this period. I'd be particularly interested in the Planning Board's recommendations over the years related to the environmental impact of development projects. Aren't they responsible for the SEQRA evaluations?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever wondered why laws are followed or not followed? I have.
ReplyDeleteI think most laws are followed by people voluntarily because it is simply the right thing to do. I think for other people laws are followed because of fear of the consequences of getting caught.
What then for our Town Board?
They violate the law knowingly, willfully, deliberately and often. The sewer consent decrees is only a recent example. Five previous consent decrees; all essentially ignored. The consequences were an increasing level of fines - paid by US - the taxpayer! The consequences for the Town Board, the very people who made the decision to violate the law were zero - nothing.
They broke the law; we paid the consequences.
This lack of consequences for doing the wrong thing breeds a certain arrogance in our Town Board. They very much don't care about following the law because there are no consequences for failing to do so.
So, here's a prediction on the destruction of evidence issue by Deputy Police Chief, Mike Condo...
Nothing will happen - nothing.
Mike Condo is an important and powerful Democratic Party insider -he is a friend of the Town Board majority.
And because of that there will be zero consequences for his violation of the law.
Sue Mangold, by the way, is the Town Board liaison to the Police Department.
I don't know who coined the phrase "You Can't Fight City Hall" but the East Greenbush Democratic Party majority on our Town Board sure proves the wisdom of that saying over and over again.
Forgive me for not being involved in our towns issues...just found this blog! The reason for the dems not voting for an ethics law is perhaps best noted by what has occured with the dumping of raw sewerage into the Hudson River. They've known about this for 13yrs. and just did nothing, other than to pay the fines! Has anyone ever heard this talked about/or approved at a town board meeting?
ReplyDeleteAnd Ms. O'Brien...we have to look back..why has this happened for so long? How many years have you been on the board? And as for what you said about Keith Langley, I have copied for you..
O’Brien also said that the supervisor’s salary was reduced and that there was a specific range built into it. She said she feels that Langley must be in the position for a longer period of time before he is paid the same salary as McCabe.
My suggestion is that all of the dems that were on the board for the past 13yrs.(and this includes McCabe)pay the town back, out of their own pocketbooks, for the fines that we the taxpayers have had to incur as a result of their mismanagement
Last night the majority of O'Brien, Mangold and Malone formally rejected the ethics code recommended to them by their appointed Ethics Board.
ReplyDeleteA public hearing on their preferred personal version of an ethics code will go to a public hearing prior to the June Town Board meeting. The public will have roughly 30 minutes to address questions and comments to the Town Board.
The personal version of an ethics code preferred by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone will be withheld from the public until the minimum ten (10) day period prior to the public hearing mandated by state law.
I submitted a Freedom of Information Law request for a copy of the "red line" version of an ethics code submitted by the Ethics Board to the Town Board following their secret negotiations. I also submitted a FOIL for copies of correspondence between the Ethics Board and the Town Attorney. I have not received a reponse and I do not expect to.
Once the public has been given a copy of the personal version of an ethics code preferred by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone we will make it public and provide, on this forum, a comparison between their personal perferred version and the ethics code recommended to them by the Ethics Board.
Please stay tuned.
On behalf of Don and I, and other involved citizens, I want to thank everyone for the huge number of readers and comments. I also want to express our personal thanks to the members of our Ethics Board. It must really hurt to have worked so hard and so honestly and produced such an excellent result and then to watch O'Brien, Mangold and Malone throw all of you under the bus and your terrific work into the sewer.
Ray, would you please provide the names of each member of the Ethics Board today. Now would be a good time to make it personal and thank each one for doing a terrific job.
ReplyDeleteDear Bonnie:
ReplyDeleteJack Conway - serves at the pleasure of Ginny O'Brien
Justine Spada - serves at the pleasure of Sue Mangold
Dave Youmans - serves at the pleasure of Rick Matters
Joe Slater - serves at the pleasure of Phil Malone
Jim Brieg - Town official - appointed per the 1974 law by former Supervisor Rick McCabe. Serves at the pleasure of the Town Board.
One must conclude, after last night's meeting, that, in the eyes of O'Brien, Mangold and Malone, each has failed. The Ethics Board has recommended an ethics code that fails to satisfy the personal needs and wishes of O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.
Interestingly, that exact same ethics code draft is acceptable to Keith Langley, our newly elected Supervisor and Rick Matters.
Interestingly, O'Brien, Mangold and Malone have family financial interests directly connected to the town.
Interestingly, Langley and Matters do not have any family interests directly connected to the town.
Thanks you Ray for the listing of the Ethics Board and thanks to Bonnie for requesting same.
ReplyDeleteI do wish to thank Jack Conway, Justine Spada, Dave Youmans, Joe Slater and Jim Brieg for all of their efforts to draft an acceptable ethics code for "our town". Perhaps the current board members will see the error of their ways, putting aside their personal needs and wishes and instead focus on the needs and wishes of the people they have been elected to serve.
Thanks again Ethics board! Great job!
ET
You know if the town were run well I might be a little more inclined to try to see things the way Ginny, Sue and Phil see things.
ReplyDeleteBut the town is NOT run well; not by a long shot. The list of errors in judgment, bad decisions and just plain dumb moves could fill pages. That's stuff we know; imagine what we still don't know?
And, like it or not, as the majority Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone own most of that - Ginny especially.
Yea, yea, yea I get that past Town Boards of all parties were screwed up. Got it. Mistakes of the past do not ever justify making those same mistakes again and again.
Slowly but surely it is all starting to come out. The lack of leadership from O'Brien; Mangold's multiple conflicts of interest and Malone's immaturity and temper - all are catching up with them.
The tragedy is that we, the tax payers, pay the price. Town hall's payroll is bloated with their family members; we pay fine after fine; our credit is crap, the town looks like a dump.
We get misled, we get lied to, we get important information hidden from us.
We'll never know what our town could really be and really look like as long as we all keep taking the crap we take from the 3 of them.
My whole hearted gratitude goes out to the Town Ethics Board. Jack Conway, Justine Spada, Dave Youmans, Joe Slater, and Jim Brieg, did an awesome job on the ethics code they drafted. The code did not favor a political party, but showed a true accountability that elected officias and all town employees should abide by. I will not take away any of your thunder by mentioning another town board, I can only say thank you and job well done.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone remember a comment at the last Town Board Meeting, suggesting we not dwell on the past, but look to the future concerning the sewage problem being addressed? Was it Council Person O'Brien, or was it someone else? The past is what brought us to where we are now. Should we forget past elected officials who refused to address the sewer issue? Where is the accountability in that statement? The Water/Sewer Fund took in lots of money over the years. My understanding is the problem still exists even thought it is being addressed.
ReplyDeleteJohn spoke up and defended the current town board for not being a part of the problem. John seems to know a lot of information about the issue. To my knowledge and someone please tell me if I'm wrong, the sewage problem did not get addressed until Langley became Town Supervisor. I do not remember McCabe or anyone else on the town board addressing the problem in 2011. Will someone please give a follow up on my comments.
I would like to thank the people who run this blog and those who participate in the discussions. I have never commented before, but I have been impressed the informative content and feel the issues discussed are presented in an intelligent and professional manner. It is obvious that a lot of time has been invested into these issues. That being said, I am wondering why the participants of this blog are not writing regular letters to the editor in the Advertiser. If any real changes are to be made in this town, it will be critical for residents to know what is going on, so they can make informed decisions regarding next years election. Very few residents of the town participate in blogs and it seems that reaching a much larger base with this information would be a wise consideration for our town.
ReplyDeleteCitizens should not trust O'Brien, Mangold and Malone when it comes to their personal oerferred version of an ethics code.
ReplyDeleteHere's why:
O'Brien and Mangold told us at the April Board meeting that they are ethical people. Ok, if that's anything other than a disengenuous comment why not vote for the version recommended by the Ethics Board?
Here's a example to tie Malone to being disengenuous:
He takes credit, in his campaign comments for Regeneron adding jobs. That's completely disengenuous. Did Regeneron add jobs? Sure they did. Did Phil Malone have a darn thing to do with that? Of course not.
Citizens need to carefully separate what O'Brien, Mangold and Malone say and what they do.
They all claim to be ethical but all three of them, at the May Board meeting voted against the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board.
This blog has done a good job leeting people in our town know what is really going on.
ReplyDeleteThe politicians like to only tell us what they want us to know - nice stuff maybe but hardly the whole truth by a long shot.
I think the taxpayers of East Greenbush can handle the truth. So, keep us informed about our junk bond credit rating, keep us informed about fines we have to pay, keep us informed of the truth about your own faults and foibles.
When you ihde the truth, as we suspect with good reason you have done and are doing with the whole ethics process, you make us wonder. And we wonder - what are working so damn hard to hide?
We'll figure it out sooner or later.
Somebody needs to get both versions of the ethics law to the press BEFORE the vote happens. Any self-respecting reporter would love to delve into Mangold, O'Brien, and Malone's objections to financial disclosure in the law. This needs to be highly publicized in the press or it will go woefully wrong for the whole town.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the the majority has until just 10 days before the hearing to make public the draft they intend to pass. I believe that Ray Mooney will be doing a detailed comparison when it is made available.
DeleteLooks like another mugging, doesn't it?? The true colors keep showing.
Dear 10:11 AM:
ReplyDeletePlease keep in mind that the Town Attorney fought for almost a year releasing the ethics codes recommneded by the Ehics Board to the public.
That fight continued even after I received a favorable response from the Commiitee on Open Government. Keep this detail in mind. Keeping things secret has been the primary goal of the majority in virtually every issue from stipends to junk bond ratings to DEC fines to the ethics code. The patronage and nepotism appointments made by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone were last week were, to the extent possible, kept in the dark and secret from the very people who will bear the burden of paying for these patronage and nepotism appointments.
The personal version of a so called ethics code preferred by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone remains a town secret. Everyone seeing the pattern here?
As soon as possible we will access the personal version of an ethics code preferred by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.
East Greenbush Gadfly, as a service to taxpayers, will do what O'Brien, Mangold and Malone will never do - share openly, honestly and completely with the tax paying public.
Stay tuned.
Ray, but it needs to go in The Advertiser so that it will get maximum exposure. I would be willing to contribute to paying for it to go in The Advertiser. Anyone else? Perhaps you could set up an Advertiser fund. Everyone who wants to see this stuff in The Advertiser sends you a contribution. I'd do it in a heartbeat.
ReplyDeleteFor more blood boiling antics by our incompetent town board majority, please also see Ed Gilbert's blog in the TU entitled "Double Talk=Triple Cost." The fab 3 are just waaay out of control and the recent hirings prove that they are not worried about re-election at all...and why should they be? Sue and Phil were re-elected last year handsdown over Ann Taylor, and to that I reply, give me a break! How different things would be now had Ann won. This underscores the mega-importance of voting. Had Ann won, the good version of the ethics law would be in the bag. Had Ann won, all the excrutiatingly hard work of the ethics committee would have been memorialized by the new law. Had Ann won, absurd patronage hirings would not be happening. Had Ann won, taxes may have actually gone down or at least not been raised. Oh dear, now I've gone and depressed myself. UGH!
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous.....I really appreciate your sentiments! But in the last go around, it was Gilbert and Fiacco running with Keith Langley. Ann and Mike Cristo were up the year before.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, you illustrate the importance of voting and the fact that we get the government we deserve if we do not get out and vote. The only way to change the culture is to "remove" the culture at the ballot box. The current majority on the Board has broken faith and trust with the population. Just look at the "mugging behavior" with the special meeting and the up coming Ethics process. They'll produce a "hearing draft" of their own production 10 days before they pass it - after their own Ethics Board worked for over a year fulfilling the exact assignment which the Board gave it in the first place. Go back and read the enabling Resolution.
Here's the link to Ed Gilbert's blog post you refer to:
http://blog.timesunion.com/eastgreenbush/double-talktriple-cost/4512/
This blog was begun, in part, because of the lack of media attention in our town.
ReplyDeleteA modern newpaper provides news, editorials and a place for people to express their opinions and views.
Don and I, and others, have tried to bring all three aspects of a modern newspaper to this electronic format.
We have been pleasently surprised by the number of hits and the number and quality of the comments. All of that suggests that more and more people are interested in and paying attention to what is going on in our town. That's a very good thing because keeping things hidden has been a hallmark of the current board majority, and past boards as well. We think openness is a good thing. O'Brien, Mangold and Malone do not. If they did we would already have their personal and preferred version of their ethics code out in public.
Neither Don nor I are politicians. So, we lack the easy manipulation of the truth we see openly and often on display - especially with the current majority of Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone.
We get vilified regularly over on the other blog but rarely, if ever, do the factual basis for our stories get challenged or contradicted. This has been especially true for the ethics code debacle that O'Brien, Mangold and Malone are on the process of ramming down voters and the Ethics Board's throats.
So, thanks for reading and sharing. Stay tuned. O'Brien, Mangold and Malone will have more tricks up their sleeves and we'll do our level best to report on those.
The ethics code public hearing is next. As soon as O'Brien, Mangold and Malone allow the public to see their twist on an "unethics" code we'll report on it and do a full comparison to the version worked on so long, so hard and recomended by our Ethics Board and endorsed by Keith Langley and Rick Matters.
Just for the record, Don and Ray, you rock! This blog is so refreshing to read and comment on. Sometimes there are whistle blowers, but in our town the truth usually comes from outsiders.
ReplyDeleteI am not against all Democrats, but I have to say it is very disheartening to see what the Dem. ruling party has done to this town over the years. Members of the Dem. Committee should consider resigning for the good of our town and their party.
There is no mistake about it, people need to be exposed and made accountable for the mismanagement of our town.
The sin nature of man can be very ugly. Respectfully, The First Observer
Dear First Observer:
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I am proud to say we launched this blog not for ourselves but for our town.
Credit must be given to Mike Cristo and Ann Taylor for their blog and to Dwight Jenkins for his blog and for all of their outstanding work to expose and share what has been going on in our town. All of these people set a high standard that we try to meet with this blog.
All of us have been attacked from time to time. Ann Taylor, perhaps because of her gender, has been the particular victim of some of the vilest, nastiest public comments I have ever seen. I often wonder what Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Democratic Party Chairperson Kim Halloran think when they see, read and refuse to condemm those horrible comments about another female?
I think their collective refusal to condemm those nasty comments speaks volumes about their values, beliefs and complete lack of principles.
I have often wondered why the administrators of the Talks blog stay in the dark and refuse to identify themselves. But after seeing how Majority Leader O'Brien operates I now realize that keeping the seedy underbelly of the Democratic Party Committee tactics and activities hidden from voters and taxpayers is just how they operate.
What else could possibly explain their approach to an ethics code?
Ray,
ReplyDeleteThe model you cite of a "modern newspaper" doesn't seem to describe our largest local paper, the TU. I am so often struck by the lack of East Greenbush coverage that the idea that EG dems have an inside connection with the TU has grown steadily in the back of my head. Friends have commented that there's is a definite lump back there :) What else can explain the lack of coverage of the routine shenanigans openly discussed in venues such as this blog, yet ignored by the TU as if we weren't just over the bridge from the Capital? Within this week, there was a call for more open access to polluters in a TU article which mentioned intentional spills by Troy and Rensselaer, but ignored, glaringly, our own sweet contributions to the filth of the Hudson River over these many years.
So, might they have a white knight of influence on the TU editorial board?
Comments?
On ethics: an interesting article in June's ABA Journal (American Bar Association) titled "The Lawyers of Watergate," by Mark Curriden. Curriden makes the point that Watergate moved the bar for lawyers downward in the public's eye, to a place from which they've never really recovered public trust. Why? More than 20 of the most powerful lawyers in the country were involved in the cover up, including 2 Attorneys General, 2 White House counsel, an Assistant Attorney General, a chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the President himself. Said John Dean, "when I was White House counsel, I thought Richard Nixon was my client... Today it is clear that the client of the White House counsel is not the president of the Unit States, but rather the Office of the President of the United States." The article goes on to quote Dean and Egil "Bud" Krogh Jr (deputy assistant to the president) as believing now that legal ethics training "needs to better examine the external threats to a lawyer's integrity, such as pressures for results, a conformist mindset and the demand for secrecy." Says Krogh today: "the sad thing is, I never asked the most basic question in 1971 and 1972: 'Is this right? Am I doing the right thing?"
ReplyDeleteSeems simple, doesn't it? I often wonder where East Greenbush would be today on many fronts if her counsel over the years had asked that one, simple question. "Is this right?" Dwight Jenkins
Anyone care to guess what former East Greenbush judge Diane Schilling was teaching other judges in Columbia County?
ReplyDeleteIf you guessed ethics you would be correct. What??? I guess that mirrors perfectly the attitude displayed so often by people like Ginny O'Brien - don't do what I do just do what I say.
While what she and Deputy Chief Mike Condo did is bad it is their attitudes and the attitude of the Town Board majority - led by Ginny O'Brien that is more disturbing.
What action has Majority Leader O'Brien taken so far to investigate Deputy Chief Condo for destruction of evidence? None would be the answer.
That lack of action, by the way, characterized the previous 5 ignoed waste treatment consent decrees.
So, voters, taxpayers and citizens can count on NOTHING from Majority Leader O'Brien when it comes to important issues.
Oh sure she'll claim this and that and her photograph will show up from time to time in The Advertiser.
But when it comes to the critical issues that really matter - from just doing what is right to ethics Ms. O'Brien FAILS each and every time.
The draft ethics code for the public hearing is on the town web page
ReplyDelete