Thursday, June 7, 2012

Unethics Code

By Ray Mooney

Lately, when I write about our town, I am frequently frustrated and often angry. I am this way because I see what is best for our town being trampled by the tyranny of a majority that so often fails to put their duty before their personal interests. I have written this article full of that frustration.
 
I am also upset and embarrassed for the five hard working members of our Ethics Board. I attended many of their meetings. I watched and listened to each of them put forward an ethics code that actually made sense; that would have been good for our town. And with the tyranny of the majority of O’Brien, Mangold and Malone I see all that good, hard work being flushed down the toilet of selfish personal interests.

The personal and preferred version of an unethics code has finally been made by public by the Town Board majority of Ginny O’Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone. I refuse, as a matter of principle, to label what O’Brien, Mangold and Malone have created an ethics code – because it is not.

After more than a year’s hard work and patience the Ethics Board’s version of their recommended ethics code has been sent to the trash bin.

Financial disclosure and nepotism in hiring Town Board member’s relatives, no surprise, got banished to that very same trash bin.

Sue Mangold needed to be relieved of any responsibility to make public her financial interests in her multiple family businesses that benefit directly from Town Board resolutions. She got that.

Ginny O’Brien and Phil Malone needed to be relieved of any limitations on putting their immediate family members in taxpayer’s wallets and purses through nepotism appointments. They got that.

There is a sham public hearing on the unethics code on June 20 at 6:30 PM. The public will have 30 whole minutes to ask questions and make comments on an important law that the majority of O’Brien, Mangold and Malone has screwed the Ethics Board royally on and screwed the public around on for more than a year.

Public hearings, in this town anyway, are as much of a public farce as this unethics code is. The decisions are already made. Board Majority Leader O’Brien and her two cronies are going to do exactly what they want regardless of what is best for the town and for the town’s citizens and regardless of anything asked or commented on at the public hearing. Those are harsh comments. But how can Majority Leader O’Brien call something a public “hearing” when we, the public, are not actually heard? How else can scrapping the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board possibly be explained?

The October 13, 2010 Resolution 161-2010 that created the Ethics Board required, as a matter of a law that the Ethics Board recommend an ethics code to the Town Board. The Ethics Board did exactly that. That same resolution requires that the Ethics Board’s recommended ethics code amendments include financial disclosure provisions. Ginny O’Brien voted in favor of Resolution 161-2010 and it was passed unanimously.

As they so often do the Town Board majority said to hell with the inconveniences of law.  So, the Town Attorney, in what he has already described as a conflict of interest, wrote the unethics code we now have before us. In a further display of complete arrogance for the law the majority, led by Ginny O’Brien, dropped any requirements that the ethics code include the financial disclosure provisions required by Resolution 161 – 2010. How does that work anyway Ms. O’Brien? Vote for something into law, make yourself look good politically and then pretend the whole thing never happened so you can do what you want? Is it kind of like a speeding ticket if you have the right political connections? Is it kind of like sticking your hands in taxpayer’s wallets and purses for a job if you have the right political connections?  Can ordinary citizens and taxpayers pick and choose what laws they will follow and what laws they will ignore without any fear of consequence like you do so often?

So, the Town of East Greenbush will have, very soon, what should forever be known as an unethics code.

154 comments:

  1. Thanks for the post.

    It will be interesting to see if Supervisor Langley agrees with Board Majority Leader O'Brien and her two cronies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The First ObserverJune 7, 2012 at 3:50 PM

    Ray, no doubt if every town taxpayer knew what you knew (with the exception of town employees and others who benefit from MOM's decisions) they would say amen to every word you posted. Remember Sue Mangold said, "the town is protected because there is five board members." The town is protected when board members make the right decisions on behalf of the taxpayers, not how many board members there are.

    Does the Ethics Board continue with a rewritten ethics code that serves the Town Board more than it's citizens? If I was on the Ethics Board, I would resign and write a nice piece in the Advertiser explaining my resignation.

    Who cares really, that must be the mindset of the majority board. Ray, to them we count for NOTHING. I know what Malone thinks of us. I can only think that perhaps O'Brien and Mangold share the same feelings, but may prefer a different label.

    How can the Dem. Committee justify the new Ethics Code? There is no justification that has any rhyme or reason. I am amazed that there are so many people willing to back the majority board on this. Interesting Ray, you mentioned on a prior post that they just sit there and do not say a word. They must get e-mails to attend the meeting so the majority board has a showing, but no voice.

    It's one big orchestration by the majority board that amounts to nothing. It's only a show, theatre. The majority board refuses to hold themselves to a high ethical standard. If the town was put first, we would be having a special election for new Council Persons.

    Slurpees should be served at the door for all Gadflies, the room will probably get hot. I like strawberry.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I read "for its consideration and adoption" in said resolution not "for its wholesale adoption".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear 4:41:

    I think that everything connected to the ethics code can be summed up by 2 words: family & money.

    O'Brien, Mangold and Malone all have family connected to and receiving money from decisions made by them in their official capacities on our Town Board.

    O'Brien, Mangold and Malone voted against the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board.

    Langley and Matters have no family members connected to and receiving money from decisions made by them.

    Not convinced yet?

    Okay. Try this...

    O'Brien disagrees with her very own appointee to the Ethics Board on the ethics code that best meets the public interest. The same thing is true for Mangold and Malone's very own appointees.

    Langley and Matter agree with their appointees to the Ethics Board on the ethics code that best represents the public interest.

    What do you think? Is the obvious too obvious? Can you advance another explanation for why O'Brien, Mangold and Malone are insisting on their personal and preferred version of their unethics code versus the version recommended by the Ethics Board?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've still not heard Langley express an opinion on the draft ethics law. Didn't reallty get anything off the videoss from that meeting.

      Delete
    2. Still waiting for the Langley opinion on the proposed ethics law.

      Delete
  5. I didn't think I would ever comment on here again because I didn't care for the way officer Condo was slammed, but Ray do us all a favor and run for town council, you would have my vote. After you win you could then put forth the right type of ethics code.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Character assassination accomplishes nothing and clearly detracts from the actual focus of this blog.

      Delete
  6. At the April Town Board both Ginny O'Brien and Sue Mangold make terrific public comments about how ethical they both are. Their remarks were impressive.

    Ok, if their statements at that time were truthful, honest and sincere why can't they accept the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board?

    If you are truly ethical can't you accept and live by the very best ethics code possible? Tnanks again to Bonnie Lester for this terrific insight.

    Is it a miss statement of logic to think that only people who might not be so ethical need a watered down, trivialized version of an ethics code?

    I have watched this ethics code process almost every step of the way. The ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board was the version believed by those 5 appointed individuals to best represent the public's interests.

    Whose interests do this revised, hugely altered version represent? It can't be the public's best interests because that version has already been dumped by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.

    I cannot claim to be a pollster but I have also not seen any public defense or show of support for the gutting of the Ethics Board's work by Ginny O'Brien's supporters. Heck, her personal appointee, Jack Conway, is the elected Chairperson of the Ethics Board.

    Shakespeare's famous line is: "Something is rotten in Denmark".

    Here, too, in East Greenbush, on the personal, preferred version of an unethics code being put forward by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Public hearings, in this town anyway, are as much of a public farce as this unethics code is."

    That really hit home for me. We are in a battle with the zoning board right now and were basically told from the start "there is nothing you can do, it will be approved". So, we are now in month 3 of our battle. We've just been AMAZED at the things we have found and how things are run in this town. It's embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. To Jim Cozzy, not everyone who has something to say should run for the town board. Like many of us, Ray is a concerned citizen who wants to see things done properly for the boat load of taxes he and others pay every year to live in this tiny town of only 24 square miles. I'm just glad Ray keeps talking. He is making a difference even though it doesn't seem that way. He IS being heard. As far as I can tell, the one thing MOM fears is not being re-elected. As long as The Advertiser is silent on the issues, MOM can work in secret to their benefit and to our detriment. Thus far, it is only blogs that MOM has had to contend with but they are obviously not worried about it because they keep screwing us to THEIR benefit. The Advertiser reaches many more people every week than the blogs. Every Thursday I open The Advertiser and scan the pages for something, anything about what's going on in East Greenbush...but...week after week...nothing of any substance. It's maddening but MOM LOVES IT! They breathe a collective sigh of relief each week that nothing shows up in The Advertiser. It is only write ups in The Advertiser than can bring MOM down. That's how McCabe was brought down, and did anyone ever think THAT would happen? But it DID happen. Thanks to The Advertiser, Rick McCabe is nothing anymore but a bad memory.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It was never my intention to become involved in town politics.

    My first time was around the Fridays off to save money thing in the summer of 2009. That made no sense to me so I asked a few questions. The answers made even less sense. That experience got me wondering about how our town is managed.

    I think ethics is a pretty simple proposition. I think the Ethics Board did a most commendable job.

    Please read both the Ethics Board's version of an ethics code and then read the version preferred by O'Brien, Mangold and Malone.

    And then answer this simple, simple question:

    Which version best represents the public's interest?

    That's not a character attack. It is the simplest of questions. So please, read both versions and answer that question.

    Our Ethics Board, after many months of research, hard work, meetings, advice from an outside lawyer who specializes in the subject and discussions among themselves and citizens concluded that the version they recommended to the Town Board is the version that best protects the public.

    That is a very basic fact.

    Langley and Matters agree; O'Brien, Mangold and Malone disagree.

    That means that O'Brien, Mangold and Malone also disagree with the very people they appointed to the Ethics Board. Don't you think that is very interesting?

    The public is going to get the version O'Brien, Mangold and Malone want because they are, for now anyway, the majority on the Board.

    But their voting might does not make right in terms of what is best for the public.

    Don't take my word for it; don't take the Ethics Board's word for it. Read both; see for yourself and PLEASE report back here on what you think.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The "ethics code" recently advanced by the Board majority may be found at a link on the home page of the Town website.

    The Draft submitted by the Ethics Board may be found at the end of the Board minutes for April 18th - also on the Town website. These minutes also include the statement by Mr. Matters which he made at the meeting and asked that it be included in the record. It's worth reading.

    www.eastgreenbush.org

    ReplyDelete
  11. Honestly Ray it was never your intention to get involved in politics, but you would do a much better job than the ones that are there already. At least we know you are honest and hard working, and would have the best interest of all the people of EG in mind and not a select few. So please give it a thought.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This may be the reason Officer Condo was spoken of in a negative context.

    STATE OF NEW YORK

    COMlVIISSION ON JUDICIAL CONDUCT
    In the Matter o f the Proceeding
    Pur suant to Section 44, subdivision 4,
    o f the Judiciary Law in Relation to
    DI ANE L. SCHILLING,
    a Justice o f the East Greenbush Town
    Court, Renssel aer County.
    DETERM INATI ON

    17. Officer Boel testified that a day o r two after he issued the Toomey
    ticket, Pol i ce Sergeant Michael Condo asked him for the of f i cer ' s copy o f the ticket and
    t hat he (Boel) gave this copy to Sergeant Condo. The whereabouts o f this ticket is
    unknown. Sergeant Condo was not called as a witness at the hearing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. so if they did not call the Sgt. as a witness, would it be safe to possibly assume that they didn't believe Boel? That's how I read it.

      Delete
    2. Here's how I read it. The Commission on Judicial Conduct has jurisdiction over the personnel of the judiciary. They conducted an investigation of the conduct of a judge. I think the Town Board and the Chief have responsibility for the court and the PD.

      As I read the Determination, there are questions implied and stated which beg for answers. There were 4 pieces of paper (five, if you count the certified letter to the EG court) which where supposedly in custody somewhere which "cannot be found." It might be "safe" to assume some things, then again, maybe not.

      Read these paragraphs: 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, and 22. I'd feel a lot better if one of our local "responsible entities" addressed this issue and answered the questions, rather than people gossiping about it, or even worse, saying that the public document shouldn't be out there.

      Delete
  13. Before we start getting all sorts of material saying that any person is being maligned, here is the link to the Schilling Determination by the Commission on Judicial Conduct. It is a public record posted on the SCJC website. It says what it says. And anyone making comments on the subject should give evidence that they have read the document.

    http://www.scjc.state.ny.us/Determinations/S/Schilling.Diane.L.2012.05.08.DET.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  14. For those who are not aware, Sue Mangold's brother owns Hart Engineering. But how would the average person know that without a strong ethics code. I guess we will just leave it up to Mrs. Mangold to judge for herself a conflict of interest, along with O'Brian and Malone. It appears Councilperson Mangold felt it appropriate to vote yes on her brother's business at the very first meeting of the year.

    Organizational Meeting 8 January 2, 2012

    TOWN ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS

    Motion made by Councilperson O’Brien to designate the following firms as the town’s
    engineering consultants on an independent-contractor basis per respective retainer letters to be
    submitted to the town: Laberge Engineering & Consulting Group, Ltd.; Hart Engineering;
    Chazen Engineering, Land Surveying & Landscape Architecture Co., P.C.; Barton & Loguidice;
    Foit-Albert Associates, Engineering, Architecture, Engineering & Surveying, P.C.; H. V.
    LaBarba & Associates, Behan Planning Associates, LLC; Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP;
    Greenman-Pedersen Inc, J. Kenneth Fraser and Associates, PE, LS, P.C, and James Moore.

    Seconded by: Councilperson Malone
    ROLL CALL:
    Councilperson O’Brien VOTED YES
    Councilperson Malone VOTED YES
    Supervisor Langley VOTED YES
    Councilperson Matters VOTED YES
    Councilperson Mangold VOTED YES

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow,, Could the 5-0 vote have anything to do with the quality of work they do? The Harts believed in this town and invested money and time to make it better. People bitch about 9 and 20 looking run down. The harts buy run downs and make it better, Ames Plaza??? Then you bitch about them. If it wasnt for people like Don Hart and family we would be a lot worse off. I run a data center in Albany co. Guess who my electrical contractor is? Yup, George Martin Electric...Don and Brian Hart. The best out there. Wake up East Greenbush, I will stand behind the Harts and McCabes before johnson jenkins and mooney...

      Delete
    2. Dear Quality, as an independent businessman you are free to choose anyone you like, based on quality of work, friendship, family relationship, political relationship, quid pro quo, etc. When it comes to the disbursement of public money, the legislature has set some standards in place to insure that contracts for disbursement of public funds are done at arms length. This is intended to avoid unwarranted enrichment from public sources. People with the business skills of the family you mention should have no problem making money without even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

      Codes of Ethics are supposed to be a device used by political entities to insure that contracts and disbursements are done outside the influence of the "cheering section" which you seem to advocate.

      Delete
    3. To my knowledge I've had nothing bad to say about the Harts and Route 4, Quality Jerk. Keep me out of it. Should Sue be voting on her brother's projects? Probably not, and probably doesn't need to- the resolutions would pass anyway. Maybe best to to avoid even an appearance of impropriety, but whatever the State says is legit is what is. Dwight Jenkins

      Delete
  15. It appears the fact that Counsel person Mangold's husband being the contractor who built the new Bruen Rescue Sqaud building must have slipped her mind when she accepted her position as liaison to the ambulance district. "Wow" that all happened in the very first meeting of the year. Who needs an ethics code anyway!

    Organizational Meeting 7 January 2, 2012


    DEPARTMENTAL AND PROGRAM LIAISONS

    Motion by Councilperson O’Brien that the following departmental and program liaisons be
    designated for 2012:

    Councilperson Malone Justice Court, Assessor’s Office, Department of Public Works and
    Solid Waste, Industrial Development Agency, Fire Protection

    Councilperson Mangold Building, Planning and Zoning Departments, Police Department,
    Comptroller’s Office, and Ambulance District.

    Councilperson Matters Town Clerk’s Office, and Animal Control, Traffic Safety
    Committee

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is interesting to note that Council person O'Brien proudly opened the door by making the motion to allow Council person Mangold to express her ethical bar on the above resolutions. Unfortunately this has become the norm for the board majority of Mangold, OBrien, Malone.

    Let us all hope that Jack Conway and the ethics board stand strong and hold their feet to the coals in the future, in order to modify this very bad behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'm getting "curiouser and curiouser." I'm really beginning to think that the Board majority did a really dumb thing in opposing generally accepted standards for reporting conflict of interest and financial disclosure. Really makes me much more interested in what is NOT on the table, and for that matter what has NOT been on the table in the past. What the majority is rejecting are generally accepted standards and procedures. They are not designed to be intrusive and they are not intrusive. They simply provide a basis for trust in public officers.

    In this connection, has anybody noticed that the majority has removed the Preamble drafted by the Board of Ethics? It's the part that says a code of ethics is designed to promote open and transparent government?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't want to keep kicking the unethical council person here but wouldn't you say with all the property development, contracting, engineering work the Hart family does within the town of East Greenbush that council person Mangold might have a conflict of interest being liaison to the building dep.,planning board, and zoning board. Mangold, OBrien, Malone obviously don't think so. More of that bad behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Would it be helpful if Supervisor Langley and Councilperson Matters voluntarily agreed to abide by the disclosure requirements as submitted by the Ethics Board?

    I believe it would set a good example for Board Majority Leader O'Brien and her cronies.

    ...just saying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The board majority of O'Brien and her so called cronies have already shown Supervisor Langley and Council-person Matters what they think of the minority board trying to set a good example.

      They said NO, not once but twice. When the board minority tried to set a good example by voting yes for a public hearing to present a sound ethics code prepared by our own ethics board they were denied.

      O'BRIEN ~ MANGOLD ~ MALONE
      VOTED NO TO SOUND ETHICS !!!

      Delete
  20. I wonder if Mangold has heard the latest news about Bruen? My guess would be probably not, but since she is liaison she should be up to date on the news with Bruen??? Well maybe not its just a title for her and the rest of the do nothing board anyways.

    Oh the news, well we will just have to wait for another on that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. One of the interesting facts around the whole conflict of interest point is that Phil Malone, in the past, has been a strong advocate of Town Board members explaing why they are abstaining when they abstain on a vote.

    But either he never intended it to apply to Ms. mangold or she refuses to accept her fellow Democrat's recommendation.

    Personally I think Mr. Malone's suggestion is excellent.

    The EG Prays blog made a very similar sugggestion with the addition that the reason for abstaining be put in writing.

    It is all about open and transparent government.

    ReplyDelete
  22. By all means I think all three need a good stiff kick in the seat of their pants. The wasteful spending has got to stop. The three Amigo's are not about to have wording that says they are to have open goverment. All three would be lost in the cesspool that needs fixing. To bad this town hasn't awakend yet to flush all three down the drain! I gladly would pay higher taxes to see that.
    You know what they say.. Shit happens!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. to fix all the issues means a guaranteed tax increase. There is no other viable solution other than to raise taxes to cover the costs of ALL the issues.

      Delete
    2. If that is the case, we need to continue taking a very hard look at the competence of the people (and political heirs) of those who have been in control of policy and operations in the last 13 years. From what I've seen, a sewer bond was done in 2008 by the Rensselaer Authority for the benefit of East Greenbush sewer infrastructure, and it looks like that money has not been spent - or has it. Add to that the interfund transfers, and you've got more than chump change. I think we deserve some (can I say?) open and transparent answers before we talk about taxes.

      Delete
    3. agreed....we need answers as to where that sewer bond $ is or went.

      Delete
  23. Hay if we had open Government in this town. The door would be smaking the hell out of MOM.

    To all of you here. They all make their calls before those meetings and discuss this blog and talk about how they are voting and handling situations for this town.
    Wake up East Greenbush! Pull that door open!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ginny O'Brien voted "Yes" on the 2010 ethics resolution that requires financial disclosure.

    In 2012 she is voting "No" on the exact same issue.

    Ginny O'Brien held a county seat and a Town Board position.

    She later voted against anyone else doing the same thing.

    Anyone see a pattern here?

    Anyone know what the word is for someone who says one thing and does something else?

    In 2013 Ginny O'Brien may run for re-election to our Town Board.

    It seems just time for a change and new leadership in our town.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Here's a response to the other blog's comments about the Supervisor's appointment replacing Laura Ingoldsby (happened this morning I guess).
    First off -- this position is one that the Supervisor has total authority to appoint. The fact that he waited as long as he did to make it is a testament to his patience. Maybe he wants more oversight over budget matters? She is a hold-over from McCabe - remember - and where do you think her loyalty really lies? Why does he owe any of us a reason to do what he did? The majority has rammed a lot of B---S--- down his throat since January and even before. Stop whining. I am asking that this be posted here because they would never post this comment on their site. No way.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous 5:07 PM Looks like I missed this one. Any word on who the Supe appointed to the position and what her/his qualifications are?
    The Town could sure use a good numbers cruncher to get us out of its financial mess.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dear 5:07 PM:

    I think the Supervisor, and the majority by the way, owe us an explanation along the simple principle of open and transparent government. The fact that Majority Leader Ginny O'Brien does not practice open and transparent government should not be a reason for Supervisor Langley to not do so. Sharing with the public and good, open communication is always a good thing even though it is not practiced by Majority Leader O'Brien.

    I also think that the tactics of the O'Brien led majority should not be how Supervisor Langley operates. Kind of in the spirit that two wrongs don't make a right.

    I agree on your point about patience. I especially agree after the screwing on the Supervisor's salary led by Ms. O'Brien when the new Supervisor was elected. I thought that was a despictable display of evil power politics.

    Our town simply needs change. I find it refreshing that Supervisor Langley is leading that change.

    It will be interesting to see if Majority Leader O'Brien works to create a new position for the replaced former Director of Finance. We saw that exact thing in the 2012 Organizational Meeting as we added positions, salaries and benefits to our already over spent town payroll.

    So, all in all, I think we can look forward to our town's continuous improvement under Supervisor Langley's leadership.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dear 9:02 AM:

    Thank you so much for your post. You have cogently expressed many of the concerns I have been thinking about.

    I strongly agree with you that "(S)haring with the public and good, open communication is always a good thing..."

    Unfortunately, I am still waiting for just one example that illustrates that Supervisor Langley has promoted "the simple principle of open and transparent government" that you phrase so poetically.

    It seems to me as if Supervisor Langley is mightily invested in perpetuating the secret wheeling dealing policies of the past.

    Three examples immediately come to mind:

    (1) Supervisor Langley has yet to provide a public accounting of the status of the six million dollar poop money;
    (2) Supervisor Langley has yet to call for a public release of the Financial Audits for the 2009 and 2010 fiscal years and;
    (3) Supervisor Langley has yet to publicly explain and/or justify the rationale behind the Town's hiring of a Consulting Engineer, already associated with the County Sewer Authority, to negotiate an agreement with that same Authority.

    9:02 AM, You are absolutely correct when you write that "Our town simply needs change."

    I just hope that I can some day share your view that "it (is) refreshing that Supervisor Langley is leading that change."

    ReplyDelete
  29. The Ethics Board will meet in public session on Tuesday, June 19 at 7 PM in Town Hall.

    If you really want to see what is possible in terms of openness, public engagement, great communication and involvement please try to attend.

    The Ethics Board meetings have always set an amazing standard for what a public meeting or hearing can be. The Ethics Board has always used full engagement and participation with the public as one of the cornerstones of their work.

    To call the Ethics Board meetings refreshingly different is an understatement. Revolutionary might be the better term.

    And as an editorial comment their work output, in my opinion, was all the better for it.

    To Jack Conway, Justine Spada, Dave Youmans, Jim Breig and Joe Slater - thanks for not just your hard work and your excellent ethics code - thanks for the process and the quality of your meetings.

    Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone may not think much of your work but anyone else interested in only the public interest and without a self serving personal agenda cannot be anything but deeply impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ray, I would like to add my thanks to the Board Members for their hard work and to note one of the most offensive sections in the MOM proposal. They are proposing 1 year terms for Ethics Board Members.
    Boards, Commissions and oversight panels (like the Ethics Board) always have at least a staggered two year term of office so that the appointing authority (in this case individual Board Members) cannot exercise an inappropriate influence over those serving. MOM is, in this provision, giving themselves the authority to almost immediately dismiss their own appointee's if the Board ever makes a decision not agreeable to MOM.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I see that MOM has also removed the language in the original 1974 code of ethics that prohibits Town officers and employees from using their position to secure unwarranted privilege or exemption for themselves or others. They reduced it to monetary/material benefit.

    I'd argue that the mugging that the majority has given to the Ethics Board and the citizens of East Greenbush in this matter is in fact the use of official position to give themselves unwarranted privilege and exemption. What a charade.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The First ObserverJune 13, 2012 at 1:24 AM

    I was wondering about the findings of the state auditors. Well, Spring has passed and we are pushing mid-June. The state requested what, was it four times, for the town to submit it's AUD for the year 2010. The clock is ticking, and hopefully Langley will release the documentation, of the financial condition of our town soon.

    The has been a most revealing year. I remember McCabe's speech, telling us all about what a bunch of wonderful people we have, working for the good of the taxpayers. After hearing about the poop dumping, numerous orders of consent, sewer money being transferred to the general fund, conflicts of interest in council persons duties to the town, hiring more people when we need a hiring freeze, creating unnecessary positions, re-creating an ethics code that benefits the Majority Board and others, more than the town citizens, what the HE** is so wonder about these people?

    Don, Ray, Dwight, you stand out as men of great character. Ordinary citizens who only ask that our Town Board and others in appointed positions do the right thing. MOM has displayed a dismal approach to governing. THEIR WAY DOES NOT WORK! Ray, you point that out so clearly. I have not yet read a post from anyone, giving a point by point deposition, explaining why the policies of MOM is good for our town.

    Waiting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have heard, but cannot substantiate - since we don't have the reports yet - that the reason for the delay is that Toski has had a problem validating beginning balances for 2010 because the beginning balances for 2009 were not validated. I may be wrong, and wait to be enlightened.

      Taxpayers should recall that McCabe, Malone, Mangold and O'Brien all said before the 2010 election that the UHY audit for 2009 was positive. Taxpayers should also recall that it was represented by Board members and others that the UHY audit of 2009 carried an independent auditors report that was "unqualified." This was not true. UHY issued a "qualified" opinion.

      If the lateness of the current statements relates to "soft" and unverifiable numbers going in to 2009 and 2010, serious competence questions should be asked. In 2008, the State Comptroller cited serious examples of unbudgeted General Fund disbursements. These led to the unlawful interfund borrowing from sewer/water and then to the Junk bond rating as a result of the borrowing.

      It appears that the Town is in a big mess, and Mr. Langley has a big job on his hand in establishing a business-like and appropriately controlled financial operation. It's been a free for all up to now.

      Delete
    2. Has the Town paid any money to Toski for the non-released audit reports?

      If so, how much? and Why?

      Perhaps this is an issue Mr. Mulvey might be able to resolve for us in a timely fashion!

      Delete
  33. Dear First Observer:

    On the ethics code upcoming public hearing I think one question that if Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone will aanswer it will cover almost everything.

    That question is:

    "Which version of the two ethics codes before us best represents the public's interests?"

    The two versions are, of course, the one worked on and recommended by the Ethics Board and rejected by Ms. O'Brien, Ms. Mangold and Mr. Malone or their personal and preferred version drafted specifically to address their personal interests, needs and wishes?

    Have I taken some editorial liberty with how I have characterized the version that O'Brien is leading the way on? Sure I have but I challenge anyone who wishes to do so to read both versions and answer this very simple, very basic and very important question.

    The Ethics Board operated consistent with their assignment from the 2010 resolution. They operated outside of political considerations.

    The O'Brien version of what I insist on calling an unethics code was developed strictly and solely for political reasons and outside the legal boundaries set by the 2010 resolution - that Ginny O'Brien voted "Yes" on by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Still waiting for the Langley position on the proposed ethics law...

    ReplyDelete
  35. I hope you will bear with me as I move a bit off the topic of ethics and on to the conduct of Town Hall employees. I have been very troubled by the number of posts on the "other blog" lamenting the loss of the fun, fun, fun of yesteryear. The posters mourn the loss joke cracking, back slapping "How are you doing?" conduct.
    I would like to point out to those 8 to 10 people from Town Hall who complain that they don't anticipate having nearly as much fun for the next 3 1/2 years that the purpose of working at Town Hall is to serve the public! Their primary responsibility regarding communication is to be open and forthcoming in their communications with the public, not to focus on which employee is friendly with which other employee. Supervisor Langley has inherited some monumental fiscal problems. A worthy public servant would try to get on board with fixing the problems. It should be clear to all that the public is more interested in responsible government than the expectation of a daily fun fest.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear 8:40 PM:

    Agreed!

    Keith Langley was certainly not elected as a result of his winning personality.

    He was elected to make the tough decisions to get the Town out of the many problems caused and/or ignored by those joke cracking, back slappers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. People get bitter when they know the prospects of "Fridays Off on the Taxpayer's Dime" is no longer an option. Just do your job people (and in some cases that means for the first time) and thank God that you have a job. Back slapping time should be a memory.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Laura Ingoldsby, as some of you may recall, was the LARGEST recipient of the unauthorized stipends. The Finance Director took the largest stipend payout. Her ethics are very much in question. She has no business being involved in the Town's finances.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Fact check: In the stipends distributed during the four years 2006 - 2009, Ms. Ingoldsby was the SECOND highest stipend recipient, receiving $21,000 for 2007-2009. Kathleen Bennett was the HIGHEST recipient, receiving $27,000 for 2006-2009.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The First ObserverJune 14, 2012 at 6:11 PM

    I see on the town directory Kathleen Bennett is the staff accountant. She received a hefty amount of stipends from Rick McCabe during the four years. Is she one of the team players who helped make the stipends happen? Gadfly, please explain from the top down, the people needed to facilitate the stipends and their job titles. You can skip the town board, I already know they were bypassed. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  41. It's easy to slap backs and have fun at work when there is no accountability, expectations, performance review or job description. None of these people are employable in the private sector.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous who submitted a comment at 7:27 - I appreciate your sentiments, but you need to tone it down a little for me to print it. This Town is being sucked dry by patronage. This is how the machine keeps its power. Show-up jobs to get on the benefits roll and secure a pension. It's a do-as-you're-told environment too - facilitating the mischief that comes along, like the stipends.

    I wouldn't doubt a bit that the majority is planning some mischief to "retaliate" for the fact that Mr. Mulvey is now the Director of Finance. Mr. Langley is making the appropriate moves to get competent people in positions which will help to turn the financial future of the Town in the right direction.

    A week ago the majority made two more patronage appointments, gentlemen who are qualified to jobs to which they were appointed. But the appointments were unnecessary. The majority paid not attention whatsoever the financial condition of the Town. Their needs are more important than those of the taxpayer. The cost is at least $100,000 per year until they retire - maybe $2,000,000+ over the next 20 years out of the taxpayer's pocket. These kind of appointments "have a tail." See Ed Gilbert's excellent analysis at this link.

    http://blog.timesunion.com/eastgreenbush/double-talktriple-cost/4512/

    The majority probably knows what it is doing, but I'd argue that they don't care. The preferred course in the past was to just raise taxes, and "John Q. Public" was not paying enough attention to notice. But those days are gone and they haven't figured it out yet.

    The only way to stop it is a new Majority.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gadfly---I stand corrected. Thank you for noting the COMPTROLLER from the previous administration was receiving the highest stipend and the Director of Finance was receiving the second highest stipend. BOTH those in charge of monetary disbursements were taking the highest amounts. Thank you for noting the fact! Just as I had hoped! The previous Comptroller was the HIGHEST stipend recipient yet the CURRENT Comptroller, who does not receive a stipend is having his job threatened on the Dems blog because Laura, second highest stipend recipient, was removed from her position. Huh....big surprise!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Please do not call them stipends. They were SECRET payments to friends and family. At the very least call them secret stipends. What did McCabe buy with his haul?

    ReplyDelete
  45. The First ObserverJune 17, 2012 at 6:32 PM

    The secret stipends must be for the secret extra work the recipients did. I wonder what secret work the Receiver of Taxes did. Are the Democrats really concerned about Laura personally, or is it what she and others are able to do for them.

    Too bad they don't show a great deal of concern about us taxpayers. Oh yeah, we are only Gadflies, and the rest of the taxpayers are sleeping. From my observation, some of them are waking up. Something to think about. Thanks Bill Lambdin, the town's citizens are talking.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Nice try . You idiots wouldn't wake up with a trunkful of 5 hour energy. But keep writing you make everyone laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Since the subject of the Stipends has come up again, here's the Town's response to FOILS from the Times Union and an East Greenbush taxpayer submitted in February and April of 2010. I've shown the TOTAL amount for each individual received during the years 2006-2009, with the "purpose" for each individual as supplied by the Town. I don't think the entire list has been included in a newspaper story or on a blog to this point. This is the entire list for those years.

    Name Total "Purpose"

    Kathleen Bennett 27000 Budget Officer
    Laura Ingoldsby 21000 Admin Asst
    Peter Partak 19800 On-call/extra hours
    Antonette Murphy 14400 Deposit Processing
    Joseph Cherubino 12699 Safety Mgr
    Rick McCabe 10000 Expenses/Extra Hours
    Lauren McCabe 7000 Extra hours/Nights & Weekends
    Robert Angelini 6480 Engineering
    Susan McCarthy 6111 STAR Admin
    Fred Nero 6000 Budget Officer
    James Moore 5000 MS4 and DEC
    Paul Mason 4108 On-call/extra hours
    Carmella Hicks 4000 Senior Programs
    Kevin Tuffey 2000 No "purpose" provided

    Total 2006-2009 145,598

    ReplyDelete
  48. Wow! No wonder they got rid of Laura Ingoldsby, but I'm sure Ginny O'Brien will find a way to hire her even if they don't have the money to do it! Now how do they get rid of Kathleen Bennett and what exactly does she do for tax payers? How do these people live with themselves taking money for doing nothing and their friends all justify their existence? They all live in fantasy worlds and Kevin Tuffey getting money with absolutely no explanation is insulting to say the least. Unreal!

    ReplyDelete
  49. Dear 7:01 PM:

    Well, I tried a 5 hour energy drink and here's what your excellent suggestion wound me up to write.

    Stipends were nothing more than quasi legalized theft of taxpayer money. Not very diffrent really than adding job after job after job to the tax payer's town payroll to make fake and made up jobs for family and friends.

    We all politely label all those jobs and stipends as patronage and nepotism but for all of us that watched our hard earned tax dollars flow to these family members and friends favored by the political majority currently led by Ginny O'Brien it is, indeed, nothing more than quasi legalized theft.

    Pour that into your 5 hour energy drink you articulate word wizzard.

    ReplyDelete
  50. For those of you who care about history -- 40 yrs ago yesterday marked the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in and eventual fall of Richard Nixon. There was a great op-ed piece in the Times Union today about the scandal.
    In it Nixon is quoted: "Politics is a dirty business, regardless of how many ethics laws are passed. Nobody really learns anything from politics. Nobody really learns from others' mistakes." The piece goes on: "Which is a Nixonian way of saying that those who forget history are condemned to repeat it."
    I find this timely in view of the upcoming "Public" hearing on the ethics law being put forth by the Dem. Majority.
    Since January the Dems have pulled one fast one after another -- trying to lower the Supervisor's salary -- hiring more friends and relatives even though the Town is struggling with debt and poop -- and throwing out a sensible ethics code for their own watered-down K-Mart version.
    There is more to come I am sure.
    But I have another concern --what's up with the Republican minority? So far I have yet to see what they stand for. Did they speak out against the Dems' actions on the ethics code? No.
    Do they stand for open government? Neither the Supe nor Mr. Matters spoke out when the public comment period was moved to the end of the meeting and exchange between the Board and citizens was limited. A legal move maybe, but a strike against transparency for sure.
    Now we have an upcoming appointment for an interim Town Judge. There is also the possibility that the Dems will attempt to rehire Ms. Ingoldsby. I'm waiting to see which group takes the higher road. It is clear the Dems will continue the shenanigns of the past but I do wonder if the New Guy has the courage to do the right thing. That's all we ask, isn't it??

    ReplyDelete
  51. Just heard some fun stuff on the local “tom-toms.” When Ed Gilbert made the great argument that the two new DPW appointments were fiscally irresponsible, I was unaware of the fact that one of the majority voting for them was “fiscally conservative” Sue Mangold, and that there was some “principle” that reared its ugly head for just a second in the discussion. Ms. Mangold was supposedly “uncomfortable” with spending the money necessary to meet the needs of the “patronage/nepotism king and queen,” Phil Malone and Ginny O’Brien. So a classic vote trade (read “sale”) took place. Mangold gets support for what she needs (no financial disclosure in the ethics code), and Malone and O’Brien get her support for over $2,000,000 in out year spending which is good for votes and work for the Party in the future.

    So much for governing with principle and positive values. Nice little glimpse into how decisions get made “for the benefit” of the public and the community.

    We’ve all heard of the similarity between laws and sausage. Seems to me that we’ve been getting a disproportionate amount of snout, ears and tails in our local governance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. May we expect more of the same "uncomfortable" decision-making at this week's Town Board meeting?

      Delete
    2. Probably a good bet, Diogenes. What is tragic in the whole "transaction" is that the interests of the people who pay for the whole operation don't seem to make an appearance. We even pay the salaries and "benefits" of those who are doing the self-benefiting deal making.

      Enough already!! The only way to fix this is for the people do these things to be as far away as possible from the apparatus of government. They've demonstrated that they can't be trusted.

      Delete
  52. Over the weekend I asked myself and a couple of friends: "What is the difference between Kim Halloran and Chris DeFruscio?"

    For anyone who does not know they are the chairpersons of the town's Democratic and Republican Committees. People on each side of the political spectrum see the other as the devil her or himself. And it is completely possible that everyone is correct - maybe they both are interested solely in politics and not at all in us just plain regular folks.

    So, here's my challenge to Kim Halloran and Chris DeFruscio and Keith Langley and Ginny O'Brien...

    Present to citizens, taxpayers and voters a comprehensive statement about your values, beliefs and principles. What principles govern your hiring decisions for town jobs? Include your goals and plans for our town. Be very specific about your financial turnaround plan. State clearly your support for or opposition to the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board.

    Be as clear, as specific and as detailed as possible. Tell us your plans for Columbia Turnpike. Tell us the truth. Be honest, be open, be forthcoming. Back up your statements with facts and examples.

    Announce a date and time to share your vision, goals and plans with citizens. I bet the crowd would make the people who showed up for the last debate look tiny by comparison.

    Let us ask questions - serious questions, real questions. And - respond professionally and openly.

    Too "revolutionary"? Most certainly. But of such things are dreams made about what our town could be versus what it is and what it is becoming.......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr Mooney:

      I have a question for Mr. Langley (since we are no longer able to ask at Town Board meetings)-

      What do you consider to be the top three accomplishments of the Langley administration to date?
      ...please don't count the moving around of the desks and chairs in Town Hall, the fixing of the picnic table in front of Town Hall or the continued replenishment of the toilet paper dispenser in the mens room at Town Hall.

      Delete
  53. I have read most blogs here in town for a few years now. I don't consider myself belonging to any party.
    I know one thing. That all good things must come to and end.
    You all know how things work around here and everywhere else for that matter. When new come in they hire their own.
    So why is it now a surprise?

    Maybe MOM should have thought harder not to be upstaged by Mr. Langley. I guess they think that the Republicans are suppose to sit back and take it. Why are you all giving everyone else credit over on that Dem blog.
    Maybe MOM decided that Mrs Inglesby was despenseable. I would say they had to have some idea that something like this would happen.

    What do you think? I think that the Dems have the upper hand and intend of making life miserable for the Republicans and continue to not take the high road.
    they have been pulling stunts, illegal and unethical for a lot longer period of time.
    Sounds to me on many occausions that the Dems are following O'Briens lead to her past actions. When asked why she wouldn't consider Mike and Phil back on the board. I remember all so well her reply. Conflict of interest. But she couldn't give an example.
    It is do as I say not as I do type thinking at town hall. One that has to be broken.
    It is that kind of thinking that is killing this town.
    It is that kind of thinking that is pulling this town apart.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dems let me fill you in a little information.
    What Langley did wasn't any new practice. You have been pulling crap like this for years now.
    There is still more that I am sure that you have done that hasn't been revealed yet either. Your unethical practics in the past that have come to light with foils is just an example how you all work.
    Dirty, underhanded and no moral fiber at all.
    It has proven to this town on more then one occausion that you are stickly out for your own rewards.
    You have filtered money on to family and friends with your secret stipends, created unnessary jobs and run this town in to heavy debt. Created a very unethical code of conduct which will never have any use and cost the taxpayers just more money.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Ray---I wholeheartedly agree with your comment and suggestion (Ray MooneyJune 18, 2012 3:11 PM). Sadly I do not foresee it happening. However, one piece of your suggestion confused me. Why ask Chris DeFruscio and Kim Halloran to share their visions and plans? Nobody elected them and, in fact, Kim Halloran was voted OUT--she lost her Town Board seat, after one term, to Phil Danaher. She was given a patronage park job and paid approximately $12k/yr to run the "Parks Committee". So why ask the party leaders for their vision and plans--our votes did not choose them.
    Truly I do believe BOTH Chris and Kim are cut from the same cloth. BOTH are out for as much of the pie as they can get, and NOT for altruistic reasons. They want to feed at the trough with the rest of the slobs. They have BOTH sucked from the taxpayer teat and look to continue. Neither one of them are an ethical compass in regards to tax payers dollars or good governing practices.

    ReplyDelete
  56. U all know how this meeting is going to go. This Ethics code is a shoe in for Humpty Dumpty and Sue.
    It has done deal all over it.
    This is how the Dems work.. Great work isn't it!
    And then they complain how much they are making.
    But ha! What are the other benifits they are getting?
    Their is a reason for everything.
    Everything that Mangold Malone and O'Brien touch.. their is a string attached.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Don---can they Dems change the salaries, in mid stream, such as they did last night? Seems odd, they approve a budget then, 6 months later, change salaries to take away from Keith's appointments and create appointments for their people.
    Typical EG Majority--unethical! Ginny yelps that she is a taxpayer too. Funny thing though, Ginny also gets paid $10k for sitting on the Board and her husband was appointed to a position when she was in the majority again. No matter how she slices it she is still making money off of us. Her son-in-law sits on the Planning Board--for the love of God, is she really trying to pretend to be "one of us"--a hardworking taxpayer sucked dry by the economy and the EG taxes? She and her family have been sucking off the teat of the taxpayer for years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ginny's son-in-law does not sit on the Planning Board.

      Delete
    2. Well, he "sits" somewhere doesn't he? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to where he actually does "sit."

      Delete
  58. Would you kindly post what happened at the board meeting last night. I am sure it was much of the same bull.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Too much work right now to sift through all of the BS. I'm thinking about putting together a video for YouTube of some of the craziest stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I sent this e-mail this morning to Supervisor Langley and Councilman Matters:

    "My name is Suzanne Aiardo and I have been a resident of East Greenbush since 1986. I am a Democrat but not an East Greenbush Democrat. I voted for both of you in the past, because I am very disappointed with the Democratic majority in this Town. Nonetheless, I have to tell you that since January, I am very much disappointed in your leadership and conduct. There are numerous examples of your lack of leadership but I will highlight only a few.

    1. The Ethics debacle is one. Voting with the majority to hold the hearing showed lack of support for the Ethics Board's draft version of its code and lack of principle on both your parts. It is clear that the Democratic majority will get their way, but why do you assist them? Why don't you speak out? And Keith -- you need to understand that a public hearing is NOT just a comment period. You cannot cut off questions -- the point is CLARIFICATION -- that makes a hearing less of a sham and promotes a notion that citizens are participating in government. I understand you had never attended a Town Board meeting until you were elected. It shows.

    2. Keith --you have cut off any interchange between the citizens and the Board by your edict banning questions from citizens at a Board meeting. Apparently you cannot stand up to pressure from the majority or your voters. And Rick, what about you? You were often the most vocal and expressive Board member ever. You show little backbone.

    3. Your cross-endorsement of the appointment of a Democrat to fill the Town Judge vacancy was appalling. Do you understand that is what your votes meant? Is that what you wanted to accomplish?
    Now even if you want to support the Republican candidate in the election, the Democratic candidate can use your votes against your candidate.

    4. Your firing of Laura Ingoldsby was a disaster. I certainly understand why you would want to replace her -- she was the facilitator for secret stipends and a lot of other mismanagement. But surely you could have anticipated the outcome. You could have used that as an excuse for firing her. Now we have another patronage employee on the payroll. Is she making more money this time around? Surely you could have just moved her to another do-nothing job. Your're lucky they didn't somehow find a way to garnish your paycheck.

    Well, that is what has happened just recently. I could continue. Furthermore, the behavior of certain of your advisers at the meeting last night was unprofessional and on par with the worst of the East Greenbush Talks blog. If you really are taking advice from these people you show poor judgment and a lack of understanding of what your job is. In other words, you are no better than the last Supervisor."

    ReplyDelete
  61. The First ObserverJune 21, 2012 at 5:47 PM

    The smirk on the town attorney's face last night, was insulting to Mr. Mooney, and all the citizens who care about good governing. He comes across as being the puppet for the majority board. Jack said he assisted in the ethics code drafted by the Ethics Board, and then the town attorney said, he assisted in the majority board's ethics code draft. What?

    Suzanne your words rang out loud and clear last night. The public hearing on the dumbed down ethics code was a JOKE. Not a peep out of MOM when Ed Gilbert questioned how the town is better protected by their many deletions of the original ethics code draft. Only one person spoke up in defense of the dumbed down ethics code, Pete Stenson. His defense was, an ethics code that we can just get by with is ok. Thanks for sharing your views Pete. The rest of the majority board family sat in silence. I certainly can understand why. The new code sucks, and favors the majority board who created it, of course with the help of you know who.

    If I was a town employee, and sat and listened to the arguments of the town citizens, who spoke out against the majority's code, I would have sat there quietly in embarrassment for the Dem. Party.

    Unbelievable is all I can say.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Ms. Aiardo!

    What a fabulous e-mail!

    Thank you for carrying the lamp for the residents of East Greenbush!!

    ReplyDelete
  63. I just read Ed Gilbert's self serving comment (9:41AM) on his self serving Times-Union Blog where he writes that "Keith wanted to find another position for Laura but the Majority would not support it thereby forcing his hand."

    What utter nonsense! If Deputy Gilbert had listened to anything at the Town Board meeting, other than the sound of his own voice, he would have heard the Majority appoint and approve Ms. Ingoldsby to the Position of East Greenbush Court Clerk. The majority didn't force anyone's hand and certainly not Keith's. The Majority supported Ms. Ingoldsby throughout the process. That's why she got appointed so quickly and even Mr. Matters said some nice things about her. Mr. Gilbert called her "just a payroll clerk" she is more than that. She is a human being like the rest of us and she is a nice person.

    Deputy Gilbert's selective hearing certainly explains a lot about why Keith Langley has not been able to show the admirable qualities of decency and goodness that he possesses and that so many of us voted for in the last election.

    Keith, as a supporter of yours, I urge you to please draw on your strong moral character and reject the bad advice that people like Mr. Gilbert have been giving you.

    There are many reasons that you won and just as many reasons why Mr. Gilbert finished last in the November election. The people supported you. They did not support Mr. Gilbert. Making him the Deputy went against the Town's wishes.

    We elected Keith Langley to lead us, NOT Mr. Gilbert. Please do not let Mr. Gilbert speak for you any more. Please speak for yourself. Keith, when you speak, people listen. When Mr. Gilbert speaks people get upset.

    Keith, I know you have a lot on your plate but please consider what I have said. Writing doesn't come easily to me , but I thought it was important to get this message out to you. I had hoped to talk to you after the Town Board meeting but the room just got too warm for me so I had to leave before the second public comment section ended.

    I would normally state my name but I am concerned that if I did that Mr. Gilbert would take it out on me since he is now in a position of great power.

    I'll make it my business to shake your hand at the next Town Board meeting if the Lord is willing and the crick don't rise.

    Thank you Keith and God bless you and your family!

    ReplyDelete
  64. Okay, Was not able to attend this meeting that I am reading so much about. I guess I missed out on quite a bit.
    Anyone want to sum it up.. even a brief idea is better then none.
    When was Gilbert appointed or anointed?
    I heard something though the EGreenbush vine Ray that you have been offered a job?
    Any truth to it?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Town attonery might be taking his lead from MOM.
    They are both classless.
    What is it they say.. You can dress them but Can't take them anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I was at the meeting the other night and think there are some unfair assaults on both sides. First of all, for anyone to stand up and suggest that both sides owes him something is ridiculous! It's exactly that kind of mentality that is wrong with politics. No one should be doing anything, except to benefit our community. I feel sorry for Ms. Hart being publicly linked to the gran torino that way. I don't think she should have been attacked by the majority that way. She was a qualified person in the position. They should embrace talent, not toss it aside.

    The real offense is the complete lack of respect for an office holder demonstrated by Phil Malone. I believe he called the Supervisor a moron, while sitting in his presence. Contrary to what some have said here and posted elsewhere, saying nothing is often times the best approach. The supervisor is handicapped from being able to do ANYTHING of substance, because he is constantly overruled by a democratic majority who makes statements like, "We're the majority and we'll do what we want!" That kind of arrogance should not be tolerated in government.

    Let's rememmber, the fault here is not Keith Langley's or Rick Matters, it is the people in this town who blindly follow a group of people with no idea of how to govern responsibly. Ginny O'Brien actually seems sick and completely out of her element acting completely without regard for what is in tax payer's best interest. Sue Mangold didn't run for the board, she was sent there to protect personal interests and is doing exactly that. Shame on the entire Hart family for allowing such a selfish demonstration of personal gain at tax payer expense. Phil Malone is little more than an example what politics has become in this country and how little public officials care about the consequences of their actions.

    We can criticize the supervisor all we want, but the reality is, it is not our ability to encourage him to do certain things, it is our inability to appeal to the moral obligations of the majority who simply do not care about tax payers. They are ruling with reckless abandon and getting us all in a deep expensive hole. Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone should be ashamed of themselves, but first they'd have to have a conscience!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "saying nothing is often times the best approach"June 23, 2012 at 10:41 AM

      Dear RJ 9:58PM

      "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."

      --Martin Luther King Jr.

      Delete
  67. RJ,

    I believe you are mistaken about Phil Malone calling the Supervisor a moron.

    I believe someone in the audience called Ed Gilbert one, though.

    Furthermore, the entire Town Board has enacted substantive resolutions at this and past meetings.

    Gadfly, any hope of getting the video on line?

    ReplyDelete
  68. ...still waiting on the Langley opinion on the proposed ethics resolution...did he say anything at all about it at the ethics public hearing?

    ReplyDelete
  69. None of the board members did. As I recall Langley tried to get a public hearing on the ethics board draft so I think it is safe to assume he prefers that one

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Langles hands are tied. Until that Majority board is stripped down to nothing. Langely and the Town are hostages.

      Delete
    2. Dear 4:05 PM

      I hope your assumption is correct.

      Delete
  70. MLK conducted himself in a much different manner than the democratic majority. It seems every time langley says or does something, Malone or O'Brien or one of their cronies criticizes or undoes it in some way. A public banter or fighting like the democrats tend to do lacks dignity. I think it obvious Langley is willing to do things that are unpopular with the democrats. It's still early. Sometimes it's just hard to fight people who will do anything to win, including break the rules and laws. Mangold, Malone and O'Brien allow their people run wild and pretend like they are doing nothing wrong. They just gave Laura Ingoldsby a $40,000 job as a gift, in a place that doesn't need the position. When Phil Malone says, "We're the majority, we'll do what we want", and backs it up by doing wrong things no matter how it effects tax payers, how do you argue that in public. Tax payers and voters need to stand up and be vocal too ya know. One voice, isn't going to silence O'Brien, Mangod and Malone because they just don't care about what's right, only what's right for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear RJ 11:25 AM

      Agreed-

      That's why I was very disappointed when Deputy Supervisor Gilbert chose to initiate and continue such an undignified exchange with Mr. Malone. Deputy Gilbert shouldn't have lowered himself to Mr. Malone's level.

      Delete
  71. 4:05, denying the process is no way to govern. Granting a public hearing doesn't mean he's in favor of it. It was likely th sonly way to get a public debate, because the democrats wouldn't advance the version that needs to be adopted. Langley isn't your problem, it's the democrats acting like dictators. Just watch and listen to what Mangold, Malone and O'Brien say and do and maybe you could step up and try to convince them to do things better. They just don't care! Ginny O'Brien running out on a meeting is very telling. She needs to be held accountable. She is no leader and Malone is too arrogant for public service.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Wednesday's Town board Meeting reached an all time high display of arrogance by the majority of Mangold, O'brien , Malone. Previous Supervisor McCabe may have been a lousy supervisor but appears to have been a much better educator. M.O.M
    learned their lessons well from him.
    They once again jammed the new supervisor. Now they have the town attorney laughing in the face of concerned a resident.
    These people are determined to hurt this new supervisor at all cost including the cost to the taxpayers.This majority needs to change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ...add Ed Gilbert as Deputy Supervisor to the "all time high display of arrogance."

      I generally give non-elected, non-appointed members of the public the benefit of the doubt.

      But Public Officials should be held to a higher standard of civility.

      Both Mr. Malone and Mr. Gilbert need to quickly learn that public officials must exhibit some level of anger management skills.

      The key to being a successful public servant is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

      Delete
    2. Dear Charlie Sheen 1:09 PM

      Isn't Carmella Hicks also a public official?

      Delete
  73. Good morning, Ray and Don. I hope you are enjoying this beautiful weekend. I know we,the blogging community, expect much from you but I am anxiously awaiting your analysis of of the most recent Town Board Meeting.
    I was there. It was an event with so many breathtaking components, I think it is important to carefully examine what happened.
    1. The Town Board and especially the Town Attorney operate in a strange vacuum void of any outside advice or wisdom. As a result of this mistake the public came to both public meetings and set the majority straight on both guns and ethics. I have seen a blog saying that the same few people spoke so I fear that the majority is preparing to say that it's just the gadfly's. We need to inform the public that this was not the case.
    2. Several people were rude and way out of line. They are in order of offense: Ed Gilbert, Phil Malone, Carmella Hicks and Chris DeFruscio. This behavior will prevent progress and must be regulated. Lets start by asking Ed Gilbert to stop being personally confrontational. He continued his obnoxious behavior when he made unnecessary comments about Ginny O'Brien on his TU blog. Being affected by the heat in that crowded, hot, small room is a not a thing to be ridiculed. The town should rush to make the atmosphere for the meetings better.
    3. Statement for Town Leaders: GET THE AGENDA ONLINE BEFORE THE MEETING!!!
    4. Why no statement about adding summer help when we just added two full time people in stead of summer help. Now we have both! I know its a small thing but the small things have added up in this town.
    5. To the Town Board: Please handle personnel in Executive Session. I think the mess you made regarding Ingoldsby/Mulvey/Hart and its unsavory resolution are an embarrassment to the Town.
    As you know, there s much more but that is my two cents worth. So, if you could please give us a new thread to deal with these recent events, I would appreciate it.
    Thanks to you, to Suzanne for a great post, and to Dwight for the AUD information.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fear not, Publius....we'll get something up as a new thread ASAP. It's just that the events of last week and the "character" displayed by some of the participants is a bit hard to digest. Like some really bad pizza or whatever. I'd say that the only good coming out of the Langley advisers is that the majority is provoked to more and more actions which insult and compromise the interests of the taxpayers. Perhaps we'll do something along the lines of the quote below, that I ran across recently. I think it is becoming abundantly clear that the people have to act to take back the Town. Just think, the majority of THREE is about to enact an Ethics Code into local law with "carve outs" to suit the personal interests of exactly those THREE people. What about the interests of the rest of us?

      "It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."

      Delete
    2. Publius....your name is evocative of further research. I'd suggest our readers take a look at Federalist Paper #10:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10

      Delete
    3. Tom Grant (the elder)June 24, 2012 at 11:06 PM

      Dear Gadfly and Publius:

      I would also commend Federalist Number 51 to your readers attentions.

      Be well,

      Tom

      Delete
  74. Okay folks I have to agree my behavior at the town meeting at times was less than exemplary but when I was met with example after example of the board majoriities hostility and arrogance It became all to easy to let my frustration, anger and disappointment show. You have my word I will attempt be more measured in the future if any of you feel I let you down I apologize it is not how I normally operate.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Ed, I, too, can become emotional over how poorly our town is managed and rarely, if ever, for the benefit of its citizens and taxpayers.

    I referred to the majority's behavior as "childish, petty and silly." I stand by those comments and have no intention of apologizing for them. But the low point of the entire meeting was, for a lot of people, the lobbying for the bookkeeper position salary. It was not very different from Malone's tantrum over his mother's change of office.

    As for Board Member Malone...well his immaturity and temper tantrums speak for themselves - on a recurring basis unfortunately.

    But...

    For both political parties two wrongs do not make a right.

    For both political parties the goal should be doing what it right rather than scoring political points.

    I felt it was incredibly classless for the majority to make a personnel matter public. But...those of us who actually believe in open government will remember that the next time there is a claim for an executive session for a personnel matter.

    As Deputy Supervisor I have a specific request to make of you.

    I would like you to prevail on Supervisor Langley to expand, not restrict, the notion of open government. Hall Betters made a couple of excellent points around this subject. More openness and transparency should be the goal. The Open Comment portion, as currently managed, is a step backwards.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ray-

    Thanks for the post.

    Would you please let us know when (if) you receive a response from the Deputy Supervisor regarding the current management, by Supervisor Langley and Majority Leader O'Brien, of The Open Comment portion of the Town Board meetings?

    I close (for now) with the following quote from former President George Washington- "Every action done in company ought to be with some sign of respect to those that are present."

    Let us hope that our public officials can remain mindful of these words in their interactions with each other and with all of the citizens they represent.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Mangold promised us a more transparent government. The only thing transparent about this government is its inability to tell the truth.

    O'Brien voted for a financial disclosure clause for an ethics code but changed her mind.

    Malone, well Malone has no idea what he's doing, say stupid things and thinks he can do what ever he wants without regard for taxpayers. ( M O M ), ~~"Mangold, O'brien, Malone "~~ is starting to sound an awful lot like ~~ "More Of McCabe"!~~ He lied, he stole, he didn't know what he was doing. Yup, that's your democratic party and board majority. Be careful what you wish for folks. They keep spending and we keep footing the bill!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait until we get the bill for the secret Langley, LaBarba sewer proposal.

      Delete
    2. Any bill we get for the solution of the poop problem will have the fingerprints of the Poop Perps over the last thirteen years of greed and mismanagement of that system. We can only hope that Mr. Langley is NOT working some backroom deal that leaves that OLD bunch with its perks which they used for personal benefit.

      Delete
    3. Dear 8:33 AM

      Agreed!!

      Any secret backroom deal agreed to by Mr. Langley and Mr. LaBarba that allows the perks of the past to continue will have their HANDprints on it.

      Delete
  78. The First ObserverJune 24, 2012 at 11:48 PM

    Maybe Ray could post a thread titled, "East Greenbush Laughs". He could dedicate it to our very own town attorney. Yes, the man WE PAY. How unprofessional to act when a town citizen is speaking. Publius, I think I'd put the town attorney in first place on your list of rude characters. He set the stage for an atmosphere of disdain in the room.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How right you are, Observer. The Town Attorney did earn first place on the rude list. Moreover, the Town Attorney is responsible for both the Local Law on guns and the unethics code. Both of these documents were drafted with little thought to anything other than pleasing Ginny O'Brien. Both documents failed public review. I believe Mr. Liccardi might also be responsible for the poor timing of the hearings as well.

      Delete
  79. If you have attended recent past Town Board meetings you know that Jack Conway, representing the Ethics Board, met with the Town Attorney and no more than two members of the Town Board. You know that this arrangement was made to deliberately circumvent the requirements of the Open Government Law.

    I spent almost a year in a legal tussle with the Town Attorney over a FOIL for a copy of the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board and discussed at a public meeting. I received a favorable opinion from the Committee on Open Government. The Town Attorney misrepresented the contents of that opinion when he addressed it at a Town Board meeting.

    And, to top it all off, the Town Attorney, along with O'Brien, Mangold and Malone met together in a clear and obvious violation of the open meetings provisions of the Open Government Law. This meeting was held at approximately 5:45 PM on June 20 in the Community Room at town hall.

    The smirk I received when I spoke was because I asked Mr. Liccardi about this violation of the Open Government Law. I guess he thought it was funny.

    A well intended officer of the court would have advised O'Brien, Mangold and Malone that by meeting as they were they were breaking the law and he should have refused to participate if the meeting continued.

    But, that does not seem to be how the majority and their legal reprsentative, do things in our town. They do, as Phil Malone so accurately stated..."whatever we want to."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Copied from EG Talks:

      Open Meetings Law
      Ҥ108. Exemptions. Nothing contained in this article shall be construed as extending the provisions hereof to:
      2. a. deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses.
      b. for purposes of this section, the deliberations of political committees, conferences and caucuses means a private meeting of members of the senate or assembly of the state of New York, or of the legislative body of a county, city, town or village, who are members or adherents of the same political party, without regard to
      (i) the subject matter under discussion, including discussions of public business,"
      http://www.dos.ny.gov/coog/openmeetlaw.html#s108

      Delete
  80. Dear 7:26 PM:

    This is not the first or only example of Ginny O'Brien changing her mind. She held a county and town position but decided no one else should be allowed to do so.

    There's a nasty word for people who say one thing and do something else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ralph Waldo EmersonJune 25, 2012 at 8:20 AM

      Dear 7:51 AM

      "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

      ...thought a little Emerson might brighten the mood on this rainy morning!

      Delete
  81. First off - I'm a Democrat who supports the Democrats on the board. That being said, I am also a resident and a taxpayer. For the last several years, we've had a divided board, divided town and have witnessed name calling, all kinds of inuendo, threats, and game playing. Where has it gotten us? When our children have problems with other kids we tell them that they need to find a way to get along and work things out.

    We should be able to disagree with others point of view and still be able to be decent and respectful of each other. We have 17 months before the next election. We can continue as is - fighting, bickering, and name calling or act like adults and try to work together, knowing we won't always agree but at least do what we tell our kids to do.

    I know as I write this it is probably futile, there is too much anger and mistrust on both sides, but decided to try anyway.

    Good health to all....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Joe 9:21 AM

      I was just at Town Hall hoping to see Mr. Langley (he wasn't there) and noticed the beautiful flower arrangement sent by Mr. Matters to Ms. Ingoldsby congratulating her on her new appointment.

      Don't give up hope Joe. There are still nice people in government.

      And good for you Mr. Matters!! It's nice to see someone setting a GOOD example for a change.

      Delete
    2. Joe. I admire you for posting here and using your name. I also believe you are sincere. Maybe you could put the same post on the other blog. Their most recent post is vulgar and crude and makes no reasonable point of discussion.

      Delete
  82. As someone that did not attend the Board meeting but reads both blogs, a question came to mind and clarification would be appreciated. Did both, Supervisor Langley and Councilman Matters agree to appointing Mary Pat Donnelly to the open judicial appointment in Town? Did NEITHER of them stand to pass a resolution to appoint Candidate Jude Mulvey, whose petition has been circulating through Town? Jude Mulvey, a veteran of Iraq, who has not only served this community but has also served this country, they opted not to support a resolution to approve Jude? They are in the minority but they can show dissension from the majority by proposing their own candidate and supporting her. Is it true they voted to approve MPD and did not put forth their own resolution to approve JM?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Gigi....The Gadfly believes that the minority did the RIGHT and honorable thing in not advancing a resolution to appoint Jude Mulvey as Town Justice. It would have been "answering" patronage/nepotism with patronage/nepotism in that Sean Mulvey had been appointed Director of Finance.

    What I cannot figure out for the life of me is why, since Jude has been endorsed by the Republican Committee, Langley and Matters voted for Mary Pat Donnelly. They could have made a very clear statement that Jude's qualifications far outstrip those of Ms. Donnelly, but they were going to avoid the patronage/nepotism problem and let the people decide in the next election - and then voted against MPD. This was clearly the path to follow. I can't figure out who is coming up with these "unstudied" strategies, but I can guess.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joe, perhaps you might share with us how to do what you are suggesting.

    Should we ignore the obvious? Should we tolerate what your friends in the majority are doing? Should we allow things to go on that have driven our town's credit rating to junk bond status? Should we ignore violations of the law?

    Where exposing the things that are just plain wrong have gotten us is to have more involved and concerned citizens who are more aware. You know perfectly well that Town Board meetings are more well attended than ever in history. Why do you think that is?

    There is no doubt that you are correct about the anger and distrust. I personally share every one of those feelings. But I am not, for the sake of what you suggest willing to ignore what is wrong, just plain wrong what your fellow members of the Democratic Party are doing.

    I fully get that there is pure hate for Mike Cristo, Ann Taylor, Chris DeFruscio and Sean Mulvey. Let me ask you this... where is your outrage when Ann Taylor has been called some of the vilest things going? Where? Your silence makes you as guilty as the people sprewing that filth.

    By the way, I do not think for one second that Keith Langley is the greatest leader or politician of all time. I really don't. But, I also think you are seeing your friends with complete blinders on.

    Unity cannot become acceptance of wrongdoing. I am sorry that can never happen. So, if that is how you define sucess in our town you are likely to be disappointed. The only positive changes that have occurred in our town have been the direct result of concerned people questioning things. There is no other even remotely valid explanation for stopping nonsense like stipends, ignored Consent Decrees and everything in between.

    I want to offer you another idea. How about you prevail on Kim Halloran, Ginny O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone to support the version of the ethics code put forward by the Ethics Board?
    That would be a wonderful start to the kinds of things you are suggesting. Are you willing to do that publically?

    ReplyDelete
  85. Dear Ralph Waldo:

    If we are throwing quotes around try Plato on for size:

    "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Grant (the elder)June 25, 2012 at 6:11 PM

      Dear Anonymous 10:10 AM

      I like Plato as well.

      I think my favorite quote attributed to him is:

      "Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."

      Be well,

      Tom

      Delete
  86. The First ObserverJune 25, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    Joe, the board you support is not worthy of decent respect. Not after they stripped away the original ethics code drafted by the Ethics Board. Your words are weak Joe, they have little substance in the light of what the Dem. Party is doing to our town.

    Joe, you are a town employee and I understand you have to tread lightly here, but you are not offering a viable solution to the problems in our town. Sorry Joe, but by supporting the majority board, you are part of the problem.

    Remember Joe, all was calm when citizens were kept in the dark. Things were calm when citizens were not involved in keeping elected officials in check. Things were calm when the board hid information. What do you want Joe, for us to go back to the dark ages?

    Oh yeah, let's bring kids into this, sure that's a good reason to back off, so your friends can go on their merry way. Come on Joe, you can do better. you have been around for awhile, and the current regime is your bread and butter. The old saying is true, "don't cut off the hand that feeds you".

    Good for you Joe for speak out, I'm sure the majority board is thinking, "well done, my good and faithful employee". Btw, being a taxpayer gives no leverage to your words.

    I would like to know how the sale of scrap and excess materials can yield the town $1,574. in 2008, $3,859. in 2009 and $23,695. in 2010? WOW! That's certainly a big jump in revenue.

    Thank you Ann Taylor, for bringing this matter to the citizens attention in 2010 I believe. Where the h$ll did all that money go in 2008 and 2009? Was it explained or did the town just move on to deal with more important matters?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dear Joe:

    Please share with everyone what you thought about the Democrats move to cut newly elected supervisor Keith Langley's pay? Did you think that was a fair and decent thing to do? Did you think that was a step toward or away from unifying our town?

    Joe, I am all for everything you want. But there are simply too many very real and very recent examples of your friends and political cronies doing everything EXCEPT what is in the best interests of citizens and taxpayers.

    Joe, you got this ball rolling. There are a bunch of questions put forward to you. Please answer them as sincerely as you care to.

    ReplyDelete
  88. AnonymousJune 25, 2012 10:08 AM ---Thank you for the support. The First ObserverJune 25, 2012 3:38 PM--thank you for the acknowledgement and support.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Dear The First Observer 3:38 PM

    Perhaps the scrap revenue is an item that "Silent" Keith Langley might consider raising his voice above a whisper about.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Simon Bar SinisterJune 25, 2012 at 7:14 PM

    17 months until the next election? But doesn't the Democratic campaigning while on the job (a.k.a. while on the taxpayer dime) start much earlier up on Ridge Road?

    ReplyDelete
  91. Joe;

    Brave as you are to post your name, you are a hypocrite, benefactor of YOUR democratic friends who turn a blind eye to what goes on at the transfer station and you have the luxury of addressing people here, because you actually know who runs this site.

    YOUR friends are the most cowardice of cowards! They laugh in the face of what is lawful, they hide behind an anonymous blog that spews nothing but hatred, contempt and mean spirited comments that never address good governing. Their blog NEVER attempts to discuss agenda items or resolutions they are putting forward.

    YOUR friends Joe, don't have the decency to accept an ethics law that is ethical. And you, you turn a blind eye to their actions and in your silence condone it and even ignore the fact that they do anything wrong. Where are you to appeal to their sense of decency, implore them to govern, rather than dictate. When do you speak to Phil Malone about better public conduct. You may have the guts to post your name here, but you lack the courage to stand defiantly against any wrong doing on the part of your committee and their people, for fear of your job and your pension.

    It's easy to suggest something when you risk nothing. Take a more serious stand, acknowledge the misgivings of YOUR Democratic majority and insist on better conduct from them. Don't preach here, you defend people who care very little about what is right. Defend their stances or better yet, have them defend them in the open. They won't because they just don't care about doing what is right. Only right for them.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Gadfly;

    How is anyone voting for MAry Pat Donnelly NOT patronage and Nepotism as well? Would it have mattered if the minority voted for her? Both sides would have been doing essentially the same thing, accept, Jude had no chance of being approved, there was no harm in putting her up. She is qualified, with more experience than MPD, but MPD, is part of the machine and the problem. Her mother was accused and demonstrated that she accepted stipends she wasn't entitled to. How would that kind of judge respond to those kinds of allegations in the future? The democrats continually put the fix in charge of the hen house with no hope of solving any of the towns problems. The fix that is to come for the sewer plant is likely going to be a solution almost exclusively of democratic design which will likely be to expand the existing plant so they can keep a few jobs and maintain control of approving projects for their friends, not to mention have continued access to borrow from the lucrative sewer fund. These are greedy people and LaBarba along with his cohort Rich Benko are merely pawns for the up and coming Phil Malone. Can't wait for him to be in charge of the Town. Their governing style is, if we pretend we don't have a problem, then we don't have a problem. Even Phil Malone said eloquently one night, "If we think good things, good things will happen!" Welcome to the twilight zone folks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think not advancing Ms. Mulvey for an appointment which would fail was the right thing to do because it avoided answering the patronage/nepotism done by the majority with Ms. Donnelly with just more patronage/nepotism. I still can't figure not making a clarifying statement and voting against the Donnelly appointment.

      And I share your concern about a "back-room deal" for a more expensive sewer option favoring the lucrative arrangement the Dems want as a solution. Not sharing the options with stakeholders BEFORE a deal is done should make all of us nervous. I have heard that Mr. Langley does not speak well of the concept of "open government," and this should worry us all.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 7:41 PM

      All the more reason for Supervisor Langley to go public with the secret sewer plan that he and Mr. LaBarba have been working on since January.

      It would provide the public an opportunity to compare it with the upcoming majority board fix.

      I wonder if Mr. LaBarba is consulting on that proposal as well.

      Where does he find the time to count all of his consulting fees?

      I sure hope Supervisor Langley is not in way over his head on this.

      Delete
  93. I have a question for anyone out there that wants to answer..
    What if a petition was drawn up for the eithics code?
    Would signitures work?
    I think that would work well.
    My line of thinking is that people pay taxes and they vote.
    If we had enough signitures, they wouldn't be able to dismiss it so easliy.
    smirk, smile or whatever.. They couldn't ignore the taxpayer ..
    It would cost them..
    Any takers on this method.
    It is the only way to take that smirk off that Town Attorney

    ReplyDelete
  94. We all would like to know why the town didn't have better control of the scrap and materials at the Transfer station.
    That will never be answered.
    WE can only imagine that it was partly a five finger discount and just poor management on The towns part.
    Not keeping accurate books on this stuff and just mismanagement.
    They were too busy taking stipends and not paying attention to town business. What's new! And to quote Malone. Because they can get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  95. I use the dump and I see the stuff in Reggies truck all the time.
    He is not taking it for his use, but to scrap himself.
    Then you see others that pull up and do there shopping.
    Going though the stuff like they are at Goodwill.
    Someone in Langleys office aught to be hanging out and keeping an eye on things.

    ReplyDelete
  96. If, by some remote chance, people are not aware of this Mary Pat Donnelly is Tax Collector Toni Murphy's daughter.

    And that relationship is what people mean when they reference nepotism.

    AND...that is an example of why majority leader Ginny O'Brien has so vigorously resisted the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board.

    Of course people already realize that our tax dollars go to Ginny's husband and Phi Malone's mother.

    Ya gotta love our town! Nepotism is our very own form of high quality tax payer funded Democratic Party Committee legalized theft and welfare.

    I know that's harsh. But, give me a break. It is 2012 not the 1950's any more.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I work in private industry. Two things absolutely amaze me about our town.

    First, if my company was discharged raw sewage I am 100% confident the fines would be huge and by the first repeat someone would go to jail. How did the town get away with violating and basically ignoring 5 previous consent decrees?

    Second, if my company handled hiring the same way the town does - on the basis of who you know not what you know - the EEOC would be all over us for bad hiring practices. Same question - how does the town manage to exclude all applicants except relatives and close personal friends?

    Lastly, how do all of us not think politcians need the strictest ethics code possible? And what do we think the odds are that they will vote one in to self control themselves?

    ReplyDelete
  98. For those unaware of what is going on in one Town in Ca., please review this article http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/26/stockton-set-to-become-largest-us-city-to-declare-bankruptcy/#ixzz1yyC0NF97.
    City of Stockton is declaring bankruptcy due to a looming deficit, $26 million, and an inability to negotiate with creditors. Police will see pension benefits LOST. Before this Town is forced to extreme measures, the Town's leaders may want to understand what an increasing deficit could potentially mean for all those employed by EG. Keep piling on the patronage jobs, keep breaking the taxpayers backs. Once the money is gone, it's gone.
    "Talks" can talk all you want...Pete can pontificate all he likes....we have a deficit that is not going away and will haunt us until a Financial Recovery Plan is created and put in place and Ethics are the foundation of Town Hall. If the Town continues to run like "Family Guy" there will be no money to pay those much sought after pensions.

    ReplyDelete
  99. There California city of Stockton may be declaring bankruptcy today after a vote of 6-1 to do so. They have a fire chief that is making $157,000 in his pension. They have cut the police and fire departments by 25%, all union contracts as a result would be automatically negated and they are forced to get their house in order.

    They are 26 million dollars in debt for a city of 300,000. Their pension system providing free healthcare for retirees, is a big part of the problem.

    East Greenbush may not be that bad and heaven knows that THIS majority will never vote to declare bankruptcy, but it begs the question, how far into the abyss will they push us before we get to that point?

    They just created a $40,000 job for Laura Ingoldsby, which, when she retires, they will not likely do away with, they will simply put another friend or unemployable child in that position. It makes you wonder if Ginny O'Brien, Toni Murphy or any of them have even thought of the consequences of NOT being able to afford the pension system they are taking advantage of. The funny thing is the arrogant Phil Malone is feeding into the system full speed, helping to drive us to the brink of bankruptcy and may never be able to collect. The real topper will be if he helps drive us oner the edge and his mother won't be able to collect her pension that he helped protect.

    This is not a fantasy folks. At some point we just can't afford what they are doing and something has to break. In order to be able to truly afford it , they will have to raise taxes on us so high that we won't be able to afford to live in the town. Numbers don't lie. And to highlight the Gadfly's point, THAT is why they are so protective of the sewage treatment plant. It makes a lot of money and helps fund other departments, which it wasn't designed to do. The town engineers are being played by the majority to fudge numbers that will get us in more trouble not less.

    But of course O'Brien, Mangold and Malone will point the finger at Langley. Someone should ask Ms. Mangold at the next board meeting, who by the way has some experience in finance, how long is this out of control spending and irresponsible action going to last and would she ever tolerate it at George Martin Electric or any of the many Hart family businesses. She will know very well, if you don't make money, you don't get to enjoy the proceeds!

    Maybe they should ask Phil Malone instead, he won't be able to answer!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous 9:01 AM

      Sorry, questions are no longer allowed to be asked at Town Board meetings.

      Coincidence? or by design??

      Delete
  100. Ladies and Gentlemen of East Greenbush, it is with great sadness and some small degree of frivolity that I must inform you of the passing from our political consciousness the insufferable but lovable Ray Mooney, Gadfly Extraordinaire. The Town's foolishness and depravity have sent him into a condition we've seen before in others (me), with symptoms not unlike comatosity: inability to think or respond to those matters relating to our corrupt and/or inept and/or both... East Greenbush. The collapse of the Ethics front was the last straw for Ray. To see an entire year of solid work be ground under the treads of the majority's tanks was just too much. He has the 1,000 yard stare and I fear we shan't see him back in action again. Yes, he has a pulse, but it is weak, desperately weak. Lies, excuses, and the using of people for their own benefit, on both sides, have driven him into a no-Man's land where he lays face down in a shell hole, unable to make it back. Godspeed, Raymond Mooney. We have lost a good man. *this is an unpaid advertisement for the Resuscitate Ray Club. Exclusive permission granted. Sincerely and really I swear I mean it, Dwight Jenkins.

    ReplyDelete
  101. The First ObserverJune 28, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    Ray, you are truly a Watchmen On The Wall. You watch, listen, observe in all diligence the antics of those perpetrators who would spoil all that is good. I have heard a loud voice crying out, be still, be still, all is not right. There is a better way, do what is right for all people.

    You have proven yourself to be a man of most noble character. You are the one, yes it is you Ray who recorded in your books the words that have made you a temple of scorn. No! it is not true, for I will say again, you are a man of most noble character.

    Why do men (women) seek more worldly gain, than is allotted to them? In the mist of darkness, arises a few truly good men. You know who you are.

    Keep swarming Gadflies and watch out for the tail.

    ReplyDelete
  102. In his Advertiser article, Steve Millens referred to the Board majority's messing around with the salaries of the Supervisor and the appointments he is statutorily permitted to make. It seems to me that by compromising the ability of the Supervisor to do his job as outlined in the law - by manipulating the salaries of the people he needs do execute his lawful duties - the Board majority is interfering with lawful governmental administration. Perhaps the majority should have Mr. Liccardi look into the sanctions provided in the State law for interfering with lawful governmental administration. Playing politics is one thing, but compromising the interests of ALL THE PEOPLE for political advantage is another matter all together. Majority leader O'Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone have brought the governance of this Town to a new low by pursuing their personal interests via their governmental positions. We can do much better, but they have shown no interest in following such an agenda. Not enough ka-ching, ka-ching I'd guess.

    ReplyDelete
  103. This will probabley not get posted. Mr. Millens is a nice guy but has a problem about his wife who is Alao very nice and did a good job. But blame former Judge Schilling for a lost of job. Steve you slam the Town but they do pay you for the work you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anonymous

      Evidently you misinterpreted my article. The introduction gives a little insight into who I am and what I have done. The meat of the article deals with the lack of cooperation the Democratic Board Members give Supervisor Langley. Not once do I slam the Town or mention the former Town Justice. I was trying to get the residents of East Greenbush to see that they need to contact their elected officials and talk to them about dropping the partisanship and work with Keith Langley to get the Town going in the right direction.

      Delete
  104. On the contrary Anony.....As Toni Murphy loves to say...."it's all about the jobs." Including one for her daughter, whose new job as Town judge probably has a lot to do with Mr. Millens' letter.

    See what patronage does to governmental operations? Everything gets to be about PERSONAL interest. Ginny's personal interest - make a list. Sue's personal interest - make a list. Phil's personal interest - make a list.

    Mr. Millens is right about "machines." They are not good for government. We're feeding one with the poop mess, the same one with scrap revenue, the same one with stipends, the same one with undeserved benefits, the same one with unneeded jobs, the same one with "cooping" on Town time, the same one with "unauthorized disbursements."

    When it comes to patronage, some people are "more equal" than others. I'm thinking that some folks who've gotten short shrift from the "machine" recently are just as PO'd as Mr. Millens. To his credit, Mr. Mullens has seen fit to go public so all of us can see what happens when governments do the patronage dance. Eventually everybody, including the public, gets screwed.

    So friends of Phil, Sue, Ginny, Keith, (I'm leaving out Rick Matters) watch out....your time is coming.

    ReplyDelete
  105. So is yours Donnie boy so is yours

    ReplyDelete
  106. The First ObserverJune 29, 2012 at 11:41 PM

    I believe the Gadfly was speaking politically, not making a personal threat against the town board in his last comment. Anon. 8pm sounds like a personal threat to me. If I am wrong, please come back and clarify your remark.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Of course not Donnie your above reproach

    ReplyDelete
  108. Dear Readers.....The Gadfly apologizes for allowing TALKS to spill over here. Just thought you needed to know the level of some of the stuff that gets submitted here.

    The fact is, as Mr. Millens pointed out, the majority Board led by Ms. O'Brien has been messing with salaries of elected and appointed officials - WHO HAVE DUTIES OUTLINED IN STATUTE - since the the last election. This is an unacceptable level of arrogance, and compromises the ability of those responsible for the operation of the Town's business to function. Remember we heard "what are you going to do about it" with regard to the contract provision added without the approval of the Board by the last Supervisor? And then at the last Board meeting we heard from Mr. Malone that the Majority Board does what it wants, because it is in the "majority."

    ReplyDelete
  109. The First ObserverJuly 1, 2012 at 12:33 AM

    You know Gadfly, this type of talk really distinguishes between those who want better government in EG and those who don't. I have never read any personal threats here, toward any town elected or appointed official. No personal threats against anyone on the Dem. Comm. or their supporters.

    Discussing issues and wanting to see people removed from their elected or appointed positions, is definitely not a personal threat. When there is no good defense, the primary objective seems to be, attack and kill the messenger. Can you believe it folks, right here in EG.

    Darkness has fallen, but the sun will rise.

    ReplyDelete
  110. It's amazing how all your lives are sunshine and lollipops. Yet you spew venom like its on sale. Donnie you will know if and when your threatened

    ReplyDelete
  111. In the light of all the press that "double dipping" has been getting lately, I thought that the Gadfly might print this little note from the TU from 2002. Might be interesting to members of our community. Especially since Ms. Mangold asserted at the Ethics hearing a couple of weeks ago that we don't have ethics problems in East Greenbush. Ethics issues in East Greenbush are a congenital pathology.

    "MICHELE MORGAN BOLTON Staff writer
    Section: CAPITAL REGION, Page: F4
    Date: Wednesday, August 21, 2002

    A Republican candidate seeking election to one available Town Board seat in November is questioning the circumstances under which the position has suddenly become available. In announcing his candidacy to fulfill the seat's unexpired term, candidate Rick Matters blasted Democrats for keeping Town Board member Rick McCabe's resignation and subsequent reappointment, just days later, under wraps.

    McCabe, who was elected to a second term in 2001, temporarily resigned from town employ in late July so he could submit retirement papers to the state teachers retirement system. He was then reappointed by fellow Town Board members at a special meeting convened a few days later.

    McCabe would not be eligible for the maximum retirement benefit allowed if he was also a member of the town's retirement system, officials said.

    Matters said he didn't fault McCabe's decision, but said board members' failure to seek other candidates and make the resignation public ``smacked of insider politics.''

    McCabe is now required to run for the seat he'd vacated for 48 hours.

    ``I believe the Town Board as a whole should have been more up-front about such a major issue,'' Matters said. ``The episode demonstrates the need for more openness in town government.''

    Supervisor Bob Angelini, in rejecting the notion that anything improper or less than above-board occurred, offered a return slap at Matters: ``Ask him how many times he's come to Town Board meetings over the past four years. If someone would come to those meetings, he would be more informed.''

    ``This was just one of those quirks in the system,'' Angelini said. ``I would rather not have done it.''

    But McCabe is an asset to the town and officials did what they could to help, Angelini said.

    McCabe could not be reached for comment."

    ReplyDelete
  112. McCabe could not be reached for comment? Hard to believe. Oh, wait, wasn't he the same guy who was afraid to explain his secret stipend payments to a radio audience?

    ReplyDelete