Friday, March 14, 2014

Right Man, Wrong Job by Jack Conway



This morning the Town Board held a special meeting to make appointments to the Board of Ethics, authorize the settlement of an employment discrimination suit against the Supervisor, accept two resignations and resolve several other matters.  Since the next board meeting is only three business days away, the timing of the special meeting raised eyebrows.  The two primary differences between an 8:45 a.m. special meeting and a 7:00 p.m. regular meeting are that fewer residents can attend and there is no public comment period.  Normally, special meetings are called to address time sensitive matters but a number of today’s resolutions could have waited until Wednesday.  Under these circumstances it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that the board called this meeting to conduct important business under the radar with as little public attention as possible.  One action taken by the board deserves special mention.  The comments below would have been presented as a public comment at the meeting but since that opportunity was not made available, I offer them here.

The appointment of Ed Gilbert to the Board of Ethics is a serious error in judgment on the part of Supervisor Langley.  This is not a commentary on Ed’s competence as a person; I like and respect him and he has made a substantive contribution to the political debate in this town.  But he has done so as an aggressively partisan participant; his appointment represents the politicization of a board that can only be effective if its members are not perceived as advocates for either political party.  More importantly, this appointment will discourage town employees from filing legitimate complaints because they know the Supervisor’s personal political bodyguard is waiting for them if they decide to contest actions taken by a member of the political majority.

The two most important attributes of a member of the Board of Ethics are the abilities to be impartial and maintain the confidentiality of people who file complaints.  If you took a survey of town employees and asked them if Ed Gilbert would be impartial and maintain confidentiality if a complaint is filed against the Supervisor or member of the majority, how many do you think would answer ‘Yes?’  Ten percent?  Twenty percent?  Nobody?  I’m not saying Ed Gilbert won’t be fair and maintain confidentiality but in the world of ethics, perception is as important as reality and the perception guaranteed by this appointment is that the Board of Ethics is stacked to protect the majority.  The message?  Whistleblowers will not be tolerated.

Since this appointment is now fait accompli, three things should happen immediately.  First, a written job description for the position of Deputy Supervisor should be posted on the town website.  This job includes financial compensation for the first time in years and since it is illegal for a member of the Board of Ethics to be compensated for any work related to that board, it is imperative that the public be informed of the line between Ed’s responsibilities as Deputy Supervisor and his work on this board.  Second, he should immediately cease and desist from posting partisan commentary on blogs, in the Advertiser or any other public organ.  This includes the negative, underhanded ‘Anonymous’ work that is often attributed to him.

Third, and most importantly, he must immediately terminate his role as political and policy advisor to the Supervisor and new majority.  Every piece of advice he gives sets up a potential conflict of interest.  Whether it concerns the employment status of an individual, a decision on a specific project or broader policy advice his input can influence issues that may come before him as a member of the Board of Ethics.  It is unseemly and intimidating to town employees for a member of the Board of Ethics to be seen walking in and out of the Supervisor’s office on a regular basis.  He must immediately adopt a non-partisan approach to local politics.  The letter of the Code of Ethics states that members of that board cannot sit on political committees; the spirit of that clause suggests they should not engage in any politics of a partisan nature. 

The fundamental concern of the Board of Ethics is to monitor and eliminate conflicts of interest.  The appointment of an aggressively partisan political operative, one who has twice run for office and recently played a key role in getting the new majority into a position of power, is an inherent conflict of interest since the hallmark of a Board of Ethics is the fairness that comes from people who adopt an independent stance in relation to town employees and elected officials.  It also risks the perception that every statement, promise and action taken by the majority on the subject of ethics has been a political ploy made safe by the knowledge that a mechanism could be implemented that guarantees their protection by discouraging town employees from filing complaints. 

Ed Gilbert is in position to make numerous positive contributions to the governance of this town and I wish him well in those endeavors.  But he has chosen a partisan path and on this basis his appointment to the Board of Ethics should be reconsidered and withdrawn.

155 comments:

  1. Boys and Girls.....A video of this morning's Special Board Meeting will be up on YouTube just as soon as I can get it up-loaded and processed. Look for a link on this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  2. First of all Jack you are right on the money with your article.It is a shame that we have people involved with the operation of this town that do not have a clue as to what they are supposed to do on a day to day basis.They fail consistently to make decisions that most people would agree with.I can tell you from my experience around politics for years that they will not be in control very long,just by what they say and how they act.Hopefully some decent people with a little knowledge of government and fairness will get involved and straighten this town out.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's the YouTube link for this morning's Special Board Meeting:

    http://youtu.be/WTF6QUAbG2I

    ReplyDelete
  4. weel said Jack!

    gilbert's langley's attack dog.

    also, MAM's gotta start acting like an adult at these meetings. campaign and election are over. you won. now act like an adult and do what's right for the town.

    stark contrast from the board's previous matters.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's the link for the Channel 6 story on the settlement:

    http://www.cbs6albany.com/news/features/top-story/stories/east-greenbush-holds-meeting-possible-settlement-14681.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  6. Where's Langley? He wasn't in his office this afternoon when Bill Lambdin from NewsChannel 13 stopped by to see him.
    Not good Mr. Langley, not good at all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Original GadflyMarch 14, 2014 at 7:20 PM

    And now for another reality check. The miss spending of $65,000 of taxpayer's money is the sole and direct result of an illegal act by supervisor Langley. What illegal act you must be wondering?

    Under federal and state law it is illegal to discriminate in matters of employment. The supervisor did, a legal action was filed and, based on the obvious factual merits of the lawsuit a settlement was reached to the tune of $65,000.

    And why not settle? Supervisor Langley's illegal action is not costing him a dime. The taxpayers are picking up the $65,000 bill for his completely and utterly stupid and illegal comment and subsequent actions.

    Nice job, Keith.

    The town of East Greenbush is de-grading itself right before our very eyes.

    Is recalling Langley an option? The man is too dumb, too arrogant, too ill advised and just plain too incompetent to be trusted by the good citizens of East Greenbush.

    By the way... I voted for Langley and supported him with a significant financial contribution. The thought that some of my money got spent by DeFruscio on those every bit as stupid Martha ads makes my blood boil.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Langley and his majority has achieved something I would have never thought possible. The Gadfly and the Talks bloggers agree and are united.

    It takes a whole lot of bad decision making to achieve what Langley and his crew of misfits has achieved.

    Recall? I hope somebody is checking on state law on this question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just think...if such a thing as a "reform Democrat" appeared, there just might be "common cause." The old "machine" ways just cost too much. And what's the matter with just plain old transparent and accountable government?

      Delete
  9. The "majority" would be in a much better place tonight if it had decided (even before it was a majority two years ago) to NOT reject those interested in reform of government in East Greenbush. The un-explained "don't associate" order cut off a major resource for support and alienated a number of energized supporters. Go figure.

    So now they have to deal with it. The performance of yesterday and today leaves much to be desired. It's clear that good advice on how to conduct difficult processes is lacking.

    Jack's question is right out there. How can a political partisan be a dispassionate member of the Ethics Board? Time for the "Majority" to stop playing political games and get down to the business of governing.

    Regarding the appointments to the Board of Ethics, I'm told that the majority rejected the suggestions of minority members and appointed their own candidates. This is a departure from what I understand was past practice in which each Board member (regardless of party) appointed his/her own candidate. Not a good performance from the SWF.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Can someone please tell me or refer me to something that tells me, what exactly took place with Mrs. Grant?

    The new EG is looking about as good as the old EG. Got to love it!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Jim,
      I'm certain Supervisor Langley would be happy to answer any of your questions. As he wrote in his 3/14 Supervisor's Report: "...if you have any questions, my door is always open."
      Just ask Bill Lambin from NewsChannel 13.

      Delete
  11. What I want to know is when will the lawsuit be filed against Toni Murphy and Rick McCabe for the longevity pay they illegally received? That totals nearly $40,000 out of the taxpayers pockets.

    We should also be taking action against all those individuals that received the illegal stipends as well. There is a long laundry list of those people and it amounts to hundreds of thousands of tax payer dollars. The past town engineer, past bookkeeper/comptroller, past director of finance the current building inspector and the list goes on and on.

    Phil Malone pounds his chest and disagrees with paying Grant. Calling it a slippery slope for future claims saying she should have been taken to trial, yet he let his own political party get away with the fleecing of East Greenbush.

    These people ripped off the East Greenbush taxpayer and as a closet "Reformer" feel that Phil Malone should champion the recouping of this money in court the same way he feels about the direction of the Grant case should have taken.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the effort to recoup the funds mentioned by the State Comptroller lies in the hands of Langley/Matters/DiMartino and their handlers DeFruscio/Gilbert. They have the majority and could do exactly that. There is a BIG question as to why they haven't. Of course they won't address it.

      Delete
    2. Isn't the current Building Inspector,,recently re-appointed by the Keith Langley majority, the cousin and next door neighbor of Langley's political boss Chris DeFruscio? That might explain why Lanlgley refuses to ask any questions about the stipends.
      Didn't the allocation of the stipends pre-date the election of Mangold and Malone to the Town Board?
      I believe the Board at that time included Dean Kennedy,and Rick Matters.. both now die hard Langley supporters.

      Delete
  12. When the dems where in power they had to pay for 2 similar suits for bad judgment and the awardees never disclosed the amounts they won.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those settlements may have been covered by insurance and may not have required the public resolution action to appropriate actual tax-levy funds to pay the awards. Anybody know?

      Delete
    2. I know that DeFruscio (the current Langley appointed court clerk and Town Republican Chairperson} got a cash settlement in a lawsuit involving his firing in late 2010. I know that it wasn't public.

      I believe that' thanks to Speaker Sheldon Silver and former Assemblyman Vito Lopez and the scandal they were involved in, there will no longer be silence on these matters. In the pre-scandal era gag orders were commonplace.

      Delete
    3. @ 8:43 AM- In the most recent case it was my understanding that the disclosure of the settlement amount was spelled out on the Keith Langley authorized floating special meeting agenda. It's noteworthy that Langley's newly appointed board attorney was nowhere to be found at the Langley floating special board meeting. Did the inclement weather on Friday prevent his attendance? Or did Langley "simply" forget to tell him about the latest floating special board meeting time change?

      Delete
    4. The payout to DeFruscio was not covered by insurance. It was paid out by the Democrats without a resolution under McCabe. Another example of the Democrats and their illegal spending of our tax dollars. JUST LIKE STIPENDS. They didn't want you to know. There's no record of it.

      Delete
    5. To: 4:42 PM- So DeFruscio agreed to pocket settlement money that wasn't approved by the then Town Board? That's not very different than pocketing an illegal stipend. Geez Louise!!! Shouldn't Langley's legal team be taking a look into recouping the DeFruscio settlement payment as well? What say you Keith?

      Delete
    6. Some interesting questions are popping up here. If disbursements like this and and the one to Ms. Grant require a resolution, could it be that the new Comptroller/Town Attorney are insisting that the proper procedure be followed. The irony is that the proper procedure might be what is causing all the attention to Mr. Langley.

      Delete
    7. Dear Gadfly,
      Another irony is that Langley still attempted to subvert the public transparency aspect of the "new" proper procedure by scheduling the vote on the resolution to a "no public comment allowed" special meeting. He then outrageously pulled his "inclement weather" stunt in a fumbledl attempt to limit public knowledge.

      Delete
    8. More likely the Supervisor is insisting our town be run properly with his new appointments. Many here simply refuse to accept that possibility.

      Delete
    9. I think that's just what I suggested above....

      Delete
  13. Here is the link to the Ch 13 story with Bill Lambdin - http://wnyt.tv/7984b

    ReplyDelete
  14. Shocked and DismayedMarch 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM

    I am not a big fan of politicians in general. They always know what to say to get your vote and then do the opposite. I must confess, Mary Ann Matters and Deb DeMartino had me fooled. Especially Mary Ann - I foolishly thought she would be the one person, for sure, who would be independent on the board and do what was right,. You can only fool me once - not 1500 times! For Mary Ann to accuse Malone of playing politics at the meeting to approve the $65,000 settlement made her look like a fool. Yes...Mary Ann...$65,000, to be paid out for inappropriate actions is a BIG deal, no matter who did it. Mary Ann, can you honestely say if Malone or Mangold were in Langley's position and being sued, that you would have the same response? I think not!

    Mary Ann, you and Deb were elected to make a difference - not to be Langley's bobble head dolls. If you don't see a problem with what happened, I pray for you.

    As to the comment on stipends being the same, I personally don't have a problem with stipends if done in the right manner and earned.
    What people don't want to acknowledge is that stipends are no longer given and not one member of this board is guilty of ever giving them out. This board, by a
    3-2 vote, is guilty of wasting $65,000 of taxpayer money for what transpired.

    I have no qualms about the former employee getting the money and actually commend her for standing up for herself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear Gadfly,
    I just went on the Town's website to take a look at next Wednesday's proposed agenda. The first item on the proposed March 19th agenda was Resolution 45-2014 entitled A Resolution to Approve Special Meeting Minutes.
    The second WHEREAS of the Resolution reads as follows:

    WHEREAS that the minutes of the Special Town Board Meeting held on March 13, 2014 which was to approve funds for the repaving of Thompson Hill Road have been presented,
    Three questions:

    1. Was there indeed a Special Meeting on March 13, 2014 that considered a Thompson Hill Road Resolution? or
    2.Is this yet another attempt by the Langley administration to cover up and/or rewrite the history of what issues were actually considered at the March 13th special meeting rescheduled to the 14th? or
    3.Is this just the most recent example of the sheer incompetence of the Langley crew in its administration of the most basic functions of Town Government?

    Not good Mr. Langley, not good at all.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am extremely disappointed in Mary Ann. I did not think twice about giving her my vote. Fool me once, shame on me and you will NEVER, EVER get another vote from me.
    Is there anyone in EG politics that we can trust? If so, please tell me who it is.






    ReplyDelete
  17. The payout to DeFruscio was done by resolution and was not a lawsuit. He had a 2 year contract with the town and in the 10 months he was there, he made such a mess of things that he had to go. The payout was a buyout of his contract.
    As for the stipends, they are done and over with and have been for 5 years or so. That horse is way dead, when are you going to stop beating it? Don't forget, many republicans received stipends over the years, including the current town clerk. Should they be going after all of them or just your chosen few Dems that you don't like?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for the stipends, its the same group of Democrats that handed them out along with bankrupting our town that are trying to regain political control. There's nothing dead about that horse.

      Delete
    2. @ 12:48 AM, Has anyone ever seen a copy of the DeFruscio "contract?"

      Delete
  18. With regard to what should be recouped, the State Comptroller put the list in the Audit Report. If you don't like the list, take it up with him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gadfly; Toni Murphy and Rick McCabe are clearly identified in the State Comptroller's Audit as having taken money inappropriately. They have both refused to pay the town back. What recourse do we have to recoup this money that they clearly owe.

      Delete
    2. Bill: did someone ask them to give it back? I don't think Mr. Langley has attended to this important responsibility of his office. Maybe Maryann Matters will put these words in his mouth or do it for him.

      Mr.Langley has spent his time since the audit report came out endrsing Toni"s daughter's successful candidacy for office and "consulting with McCabe on fiscal matters. He has not asked for our money back. Maybe the other two members of the majority will convince him to do the rikght thing.

      Delete
    3. My question was directed to the Gadfly, for an intelligent answer, not for a negative politically motivated answer. I'll try one more time with the same question.

      Delete
    4. It's simple. Langley is just out for himself and his good friend DeFruscio. He couldn't care less about the Town's employment practices, the SWF, Ethics, Fiscal Responsibility, Reform or anything else of substance.
      He's all about the perks of his corner office (when he's there that is) and that's it. What a sad state of affairs he has put us all in.
      Mr. Langley has shown an inability to understand the most basic tasks involved in administering a local government. His communication skills are almost non existent. If he wasn't the CFO of a $20million plus a year government, I'd almost feel sorry for him. Instead I'm feeling sorry for myself and the rest of the East Greenbush taxpayers.

      Delete
    5. Bill....I'd say the responsibility is in Langley's and the SWF's lap. So far, no action. Looks to me like the ability to act in the taxpayer's interest is just as frozen with the new bunch as with the old one. The devil we didn't know is becoming like the devil we did know. Maybe in 18 months we should be looking for a "third" way.

      Delete
    6. Dear Bill,
      Keith asked McCabe to come in and speak on his behalf to the Times Union on financial matters. I wouldn't be surprised if Langley was obtuse enough to ask for McCabe's support in 2015.

      Delete
    7. Dear Gadfly; Thank you for responding, but I was looking to you for a possible option to a real remedy. I would have gladly gone in and sat down with the Supervisor to discuss the matter with him. I appreciate your time.

      Delete
    8. Gee wiz, Bill, second answer, same as the first. The Gadfly is often kind enough to print comments with a political overtones and I think that is because his blog exists to support political commentary. If you don't want the responses of random bloggers, maybe e-mail would work better for you.

      Delete
    9. Dear Bill,
      I hope you take the time out of your schedule to speak with the Supervisor about a real remedy.

      Delete
    10. Simple answer, Bill. Go into the supervisor and ask him to make an effort to recoup the money. Let us know how it works out .

      Delete
    11. Will do, thanks everyone.

      Delete
  19. Dear 12:48 AM: I just reviewed the resolutions for 9/10, 10/10, 11/10 and 12/10 in the Town's minutes and was not able to find any resolution even hinting at a DeFruscio by-out or a lawsuit. Could you please direct us to where or when it was approved? Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  20. How about we get back to the subject of this Post....the appointment of the Supervisor's political operative to the Ethics Board? And no input from the Minority on the staffing of the Ethics Board. If there's one thing that should not be made into a political football it's the Ethics Board, and the Majority had a chance to avoid that eventuality. But it didn't. Will they have the character to fix their mistake?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right you are, Gadfly. Jack's essay hits the nail on the head. Do either of you think it is possible for Ed to recoup his reputation and do a good job on the Ethics Board? I kinda think it's too late.

      Do you think that all the unsavory stuff was on the same hidden agenda so that no one item got our undivided attention?

      Delete
  21. Dear Gadfly,
    Back to the subject... It was very telling that Supervisor Langley made no comment at all about his majority appointments to the Ethics Board at the special meeting. If there is one issue that deserved a detailed and transparent explanation from Supervisor Langley, it is ethics. The fact that he chose silence and secrecy does not reflect well on himself and HIS new ethics board. Councilperson Mangold made a very reasonable request that the appointments be considered at the regularly scheduled Board meeting (only 3 business days later) in order to give the full board a chance to review the resumes/backgrounds of the appointees. Her request was summarily rejected by the Langley majority.
    It is inconceivable that appointees to such an important Board were confirmed without their resumes being provided to the full board and the general public.
    Kudos to Councilperson Mangold for advocating for transparency on this issue and kudos to Councilperson Malone for joining Ms. Mangold in voting against this opaque process.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was also the suggestion (by Councilperson Mangold) that resumes be submitted. I would have been happy to submit mine. Instead, I was summarily "dismissed".

      Delete
    2. What harm would it have caused if Mr. Langley had agreed to Ms.Mangold's good suggestion? Mr. Langley operated at a glacial pace for over two years and now he's steamrolling ethics appointments through at 8:45 on a Friday morning? This is the ethics board, Keith. People in distress need to know that the ethics board will listen to them in a respectful, and non-partisan manner. The Langley way is not respectful at all and engenders little confidence that matters before the ethics board will be handled in an ethical and caring way.
      Why wouldn't Mr. Langley have at least given his fellow Town Board member Mangold the courtesy of an explanation for his bizarre action? Will Langley explain himself at this Wednesday's Town Board meeting? An apology from Mr. Langley to Ms. Mangold for ignoring her valid concerns is in order. The residents, employees and Town Board members of EG deserve to be treated with respect by their elected Supervisor.
      I sure hope Councilperson Mangold continues to ask good questions.
      C'mon Keith, let the sunshine in...

      Delete
  22. I think Ed Gilbert is a fine choice for the Ethics board and in fact should be appointed chairman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure Langley and Matters would support Ed Gilbert as chairman.

      Delete
    2. Oh, give us a break. Ed Gilbert himself must have written this. No one else would make so stupid a comment. Jack Conway is 100% right on with his every comment and point about Ed Gilbert.

      Ethics is now as dead in East Greenbush as transparency, honesty, keeping campaign promises, caring about taxpayers and obeying the law.

      East Greenbush needs a total taxpayer revolt.

      Delete
  23. Dear Gadfly; To your point about returning to the subject on ethics. After I meet with the Supervisor over the issue on the inappropriate money that Toni Murphy has received, I will be filing a formal complaint with our newly appointed ethics board once the process is in place to investigate this matter and render a recommendation to our town board. Hopefully this will make it easier for our town board to act on these sensitive issues. You have been very helpful thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bill, et al,

      I don't believe the Ethics Board can investigate events occurring prior to the enactment of the new Ethics Law, namely Oct. 16, 2013.

      Also, I doubt there is anything in the Ethics Law that would cover the situation.

      I could be wrong, as the adopted Ethics Law doesn't seem to appear on the Town's web page.

      Pete Stenson

      Delete
  24. Bill: God speed on your proposed mission. If you are successful, and I sincerely hope you are, you, too, will have been very helpful to our town.

    Kinda kooky though. A nice guy like you has to work so hard to get the Town Board to do their job. Let me be the first to thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The so called supervisor is going to say that he consulted with the town attorney who advised against trying to recoup the illegally given stipends because the process would be too costly in terms of legal expenses with too uncertain an outcome.

      What the supervisor really means when he says that is:

      1.) He is gutless.
      2.) He lacks the political will.
      3.) He is too close to McCabe and Murphy to take them on.
      4.) He has the town attorney to blame for his weakness.
      5.) He really and truly does not care a flip about the taxpayers' money.

      Bill, please let us all know how close I am to predicting the supervisor's response. Thanks you.

      Delete
  25. Moody's bond rating group will be very interested in the Supervisor's reasons for refusing to pursue the recoupment of the illegally paid stipends. When a municipality is attempting to get out of junk bond status it is expected to pursue the collection of all monies owed to it. Mr. Langley only seems willing to pursue a tax increase on the residents and businesses located in East Greenbush.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It should be of great concern to the voters of East Greenbush that neither Supervisor Keith Langley or his Deputy Supervisor and Political "Strategist," Ed Gilbert, is unable to process and understand that Mr. Gilbert has an inherent conflict of interest as a member of the Ethics Board, by virtue of his close and partisan association with his boss, Mr. Langley.
    Mr. Gilbert, by his acceptance of his appointment to the Ethics Board, has manifestly demonstrated his own unsuitability for the position.

    ReplyDelete
  27. If enough people complain to the state comptrollers office about the paying back of stipends they will explain how this should be done.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sword of the Lord and of GideonMarch 18, 2014 at 9:23 AM

      One important reason that the Supervisor should address the stipend, longevity and sick leave payments is that they were used to "pad" pensions. So there's an ongoing payment by taxpayers in addition to the initial unlawful disbursements. The Town should follow-up with the State Retirement System to make sure that pension credits exclude these payments.

      Delete
    2. Such is life a whole bunch of people in Bruen padded their pensions or earned a pension without even doing what was required, has anyone tried to retrieve that money? The same old same old!!!

      Delete
  28. Dear Mr. Conway,
    If Ed Gilbert is a member of the Rensselaer County Conservative Party Committee, would that make him ineligible to serve as a Member (or Chairperson?) of the Ethics Board of the Town of East Greenbush, according to the letter of the Code of Ethics?

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ 10:31 AM- Great question. I wonder if any of the other Langley appointed Ethics Committee members serve on political party committees? It's hard to find out when there are no resumes submitted for Town Board or public examination. Is that why Supervisor Langley ignored the good questions posed by Councilperson Mangold?

    ReplyDelete
  30. 10:31: If Ed was a member or officer of any political committee he should have resigned by now since he's formally a member of the East Greenbush Board of Ethics and can't do both according to our Code of Ethics. If he is a member and hasn't resigned from all committees someone is likely to file a formal complaint with the Board of Ethics. And by 'someone' I mean me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Looks like this bunch is just as "tone deaf" as the last bunch. They don't give a "rip" about proper action. Just interested in throwing their weight around. Bullies, I'd say.

      In this connection, but with a different set of rules (the Rules of the Chief Judge), DeFruscio should not be a Court Attendant as long as he is Chairman of the Town Republican Party.

      Delete
  31. Anyone know if Matt Markham or Bill Lambdin coming to Wednesday’s Meeting?

    Interesting follow up would be the majority treatment of the Ethics Board and Sue’s motion to table.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ 10:25 AM,
    It wouldn't be surprising at all. There could even be some interest by the Times-Union, both Alysia Santo and Brendan Lyons are very well versed in East Greenbush comings and goings.
    Here's hoping the Gadfly continues to post the TB meetings on You Tube. This allows reporters to review what happens at the meetings in greater detail even if they can't be there in person.
    The Langley "packing" of the Ethics Board might even rate a front page story in a Sunday edition of the Times-Union.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Any wrongdoing done by officials that the current one refuses to take action could be considered public corruption and be sued by the local populace. You could in theory as a public citizen sue those who were in power during the events under the RICO act. Many a citizen has sued to get their government to act in situations like this because those who do nothing are just as corrupt as the old guard. All it takes is a brave citizen and a lawyer to sue them and get the people the justice they deserve. If your taxes have gone up due to unfair accessments and other injuries it could be construed as RICO violations. Now would a case win, perhaps, but the attention it grabs in the headlines will force the govt of east greenbush to deal with past abuses or face the wrath of citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Does any rendition of the Code of Ethics include Board member deportment? The nastiness and lack of professionalism needs to stop. While the police presence at the special meeting a week ago Friday may have been coincidental, it may become necessary if these elected officials cannot control themselves. Residents deserve better and we should demand better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ms. Vallee, you have without question gotten off on the wrong foot politically. A little courage could put you on the right track. Good Luck, the ball is in your court.

      Delete
    2. How has Cheryl gotten off on the wrong foot politically, other than running on the Dem ticket? She was a candidate for the Ethics Board, and blocked by the SWF. And she raises an excellent point about public official behavior. Our Dep Supe could take some pointers.

      I guess I just don't understand the Anonymous comment above.

      Delete
    3. Thanks but please help me understand what you mean.

      Delete
    4. You selected the wrong party to work with. It's not that complicated. You were viewed differently. If you have second thoughts about your direction you need to reach out.

      Delete
  35. Is this really Cheryl Vallee? Or is someone just using her name? I have seen specifically on another blog where people's names were getting used by other people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Cheryl has my e-mail. If she's being impersonated, I'll trust her to let me know.

      Delete
    2. Thank you gadfly. I was just checking because of past indiscretions. I like the fact that she is willing to put her name out there, just like Ann Taylor has for years. This is only a win win for we the people.

      Delete
  36. Bravo for Cheryl Vallee! I made a mistake in not voting for her last November. I WILL be voting for her in November, 2015!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Taxpayers should be paying attention to this link from Dwight Jenkins. It raises some serious questions about the ability to "fix" in the Langley administration. It's clear that this stuff started under McCabe, but it continues now. No Minutes?? Good grief!!!

    http://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/a-few-planning-board-questions/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's the problem? Planning board approved a residential sub-division, now their building homes.

      Delete
    2. I think Dwight (and maybe others) might be saying that the problem is in the "HOW."

      Delete
    3. It's my understanding that an Article 78 is the remedy that taxpayers have. But there are time limits to these actions. When there are no resolutions or minutes to "set the time limit clocks" there just might be some mischief going on. Looks to me like this happened on the Langley watch, and he should be providing some explanations.

      Delete
    4. Looks like it might be time for Dwight to ask for another sit down when Supervisor Langley.

      Delete
    5. No sit downs needed on this one, 8:01- just the documentation. 6:20- can you read? If so, go back and re-read the piece, especially the part about no final approval (as in just preliminary approval from 3 years ago) from the Planning Board, as required by NYS Law. That's why when you review the PB minutes you see all these "final approvals" scattered amongst the "preliminary approvals." The Chairman doesn't have it in his power to approve anything without a final approval Resolution from the Planning Board. What we see looks like a rush-job in the terrifying aftermath of the Great Republican Purge of 2014. Dwight Jenkins

      Delete
    6. So who's doing this stuff, and who are the "orders" coming from? Langley, have you lost control???

      Delete
    7. Calling Bill Lambdin and Matt Markham. Might be worth an on camera interview with Supervisor Langley on this.

      Delete
  38. Dwight's report raises some questions that need to be answered. Maybe there are good answers and if so, someone from the town government should move quickly to set the record straight. If they don't, the good news is that Dwight doesn't tire and doesn't back down so he'll get to the bottom of this. I'm hoping the new majority realizes sometime soon that public confidence is an important ingredient in the recipe for effective government. Bring us on board, do the right thing and be seen to do the right thing and the Smart Way Forward could turn out to be a very smart way forward. Operate in the dark, make questionable appointments and hide behind a wall of silence and the lack of public confidence will undermine your best intentions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm thinking that we have another example of governmental sleaze... Started with McCabe and continued gloriously with Langley... Go figure...

      Delete
    2. This kind of crap could be why the town engineer was sent packing.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Conway and Mr. Jenkins,
      I'm sure Supervisor Langley will answer all your questions in his next Supervisor's Report. That is unless he needs the space to publicize the latest coffee shop opening.

      Delete
  39. Good for Dwight. Great writing. I wish him good luck with his research.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The Town Engineer had absolutely nothing to do with the approval process. He has no vote or influence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Smells like a back room deal. Wasn't that his job ( back room deals ). Follow the money and draw your own conclusion.

      Delete
  41. I feel for Dwight, and everyone else in this town that isn't some how connect or related to the people in power. For too long politicians (and not just the ones in this town) have been able to do what they want to do when they want to do it. These are not the principles that are country was founded on.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I can relate to Dwight too, because every time I look out the windows in the back of my house I see this HUGE building that has been being built since Nov. by the Harts. Yes they replaced an existing garage, but the building they replaced it with is 3 times the size of the building that was there.

    A few years ago I had a neighbor across the street replace and existing shed with a shed of the same size, but before he could proceed he had to send letters to everyone within a certain radius, he had to send them certified mail no less. Well anyways if any person that received one of those letters had a problem with said shed then said person would not have been able to replace the shed.

    So my question is how come someone else can go ahead and replace a garage with another garage/office/apartment that is 3 times the size of an existing one and not have to send letters to anyone in the area?

    See people its not just a question of the haves and have nots, it also about the connect and the not connected.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Jim, just to be clear: I am not inconvenienced by this planned development, but I've always been opposed to it because it never, in all its years, fit the requirements of the law for one reason or another, which is why it hasn't happened. Until now. But now it's even worse, because at least the Town went through the motions in the past. This time they seem to have just blatantly rammed through a Final Plat Approval for the project without a Planning Board Resolution of any kind! It looks like the Chairman of the PB just signed off on it and the builders were off to the races on the first house. Like I said, it was never about having neighbors, it was and is only about the corrupt processes that are still in place. This isn't just a minor little law that got overlooked, this is 23 homes, and big money. A lot of important people have been counting on this project for a lot of different reasons, and I think the prevailing attitude was finally, "Screw 'em. They don't like it? Take us to court." Works for me. Dwight

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Sword of the Lord and of GideonMarch 25, 2014 at 5:03 PM

      The only thing that will stop the shenanigans in this Town is a good old fashioned "perp walk." Both Parties are up to their butts in it.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Jenkins and Sword,
      To paraphrase Senator Howard Baker during the Watergate Hearings: "What did the ( current Supervisor) know and when did he know it?"

      Delete
    3. Dwight I agree 100 percent it is really not an inconvenience with my problem either. The inconvenience is when one person replaces a shed and has to inform everyone in a neighborhood and another not only replaces a garage, but replaces it with something 3 times the size of the old and doesn't have to inform a soul.

      This type of different strokes for different folks kind of stuff needs to stop.

      They wonder why people don't trust the government.

      Delete
  44. Does anyone know who the Chairperson of the Planning Board is?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Don't forget that Supervisor Langley also chose to appoint himself as the Town Board Liaison to the Planning Board at the Organizational Meeting. The plot thickens.
    Not good Mr. Langley, not good at all!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's clear that Langley doesn't know about "plausible deniability." And where was the Planning Board attorney when this was going on?

      Delete
    2. Looks like just another one of those Maney, Hart deals that they muscled through the system.

      My guess is the mischief was all done at the planning board at some point. Blaming Mr. Langley because you don't like Mr. Langley might make you feel better, but Mr. Polsinello the planning board chairman may be the person to question.

      Delete
    3. Wasn't the planning board chairman one of the Langley/SWF appointees at the organizational meeting in early january? Curiouser and curiouser.

      Delete
    4. Dear 5:29 PM, So Langley is the Planning Board Liaison and Langley appointed the Planning Board Chairperson. Sure seems like Langley is in the thick of this, whether I happen to like him or not.
      How about giving us some answers Keith?

      Delete
  46. I know this is off track, I tried to post this on Jim and Dave Van warmers blog today . and made a few phone calls ,I felt the post was off color, the town supervisor had a very personal attack on him and his family today . My son was being blamed for this post of poor taste . The Tax receiver pointed the finger at Phillip,she wanted to take the heat off her and her gang [Richard Benko,Dave Van warmer, Toni I know your part of it] So I am here to set the record straight, the next time you are involved in something so despicable leave my son out of it . Your words traveled fast . Answer your phone next time, I would not want to do our laundry in public again .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To 8:46 PM (CDef?),
      Why not ask the Supervisor to try to govern in a transparent manner that includes responding to taxpayer questions, instead of resorting to juvenile fake Martha Andiago type posts?
      Why not use some positive energy for positive change? That's what your successful SWF candidates wrote about in their paid campaign Advertiser advertisements.

      Delete
  47. The government of this Town has to be taken away from those who have been running it for a long time - both Parties. There is no credibility left. They fight with each other over peanuts at the expense of the taxpayer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well Donnie Boy wrong again. It's you that has lost what little credibility you ever had. Your flock has wandered. You see Donnie I will have something to offer them that you can't. A Job, plenty of them on 1/1/16. Hope you're still around to see the band back together.

      Delete
    2. Sounds to me like Ricky McCabe is announcing his return at the taxpayer's expense for the patronage that he thinks will elect him.

      Delete
  48. Folks:

    I built a deck and a shed. I got the required building permits and, most probably because I ask questions of town officials, I had multiple inspections of that deck.

    A former neighbor is the daughter of the town tax collector and now a town judge. That house had a finished basement installed and a deck built with no visible building permit.

    My taxes were raised based on these improvements but reversed on appeal. I never checked to see how all these improvements affected my super politically connected neighbor.

    These are simple, basic facts. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  49. There may or may not be some wrongdoing among the financiers and the contractors. They don't work for me. Keith Langley and the TB do work for me and I expect them to do the right thing. They are obligated to follow the rules and regulations governing public officials and they are obligated to appoint people who will familiarize themselves with their jobs and do them appropriately. The PB Chair should not have the authority to finalize this kind of action with no oversight. This issue goes back to having appropriate internal controls, regular informative public reporting of activities from all departments, an independent Ethics Board, and job descriptions and training for all employees.
    There are many other problems that must also be addressed. They are:
    1. our missing but paid for audits
    2. any kind of a current independent outside audit
    3. the $65,000 lawsuit pay out
    4. the politicization of the Ethics Board
    5. the lack of a citizens advisory group of any kind
    So, including the land deal, that comes to six major issues tat must be addressed. The problem solving must begin. That's the right thing, Mr. Langley, do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  50. What's really weird is that I'm getting a lot of traffic which seems to indicate that playing with government is some kind of joke - a belly bumping power play exercise between two camps. No understanding whatsoever as to what government is about. Testosterone and no brains or class. Promises of jobs at the public's expense, etc. Does anybody think we can afford this much longer?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well sure we can. That's the way it works DJ. If you played your cards right and stepped in line you to could be rewarded on 1/1/16 also.

      Delete
    2. Don't you love it, boys and girls....just step up and put quarter after quarter in the machine slots.

      Delete
    3. You and Pete could be in charge of finance at $50,000 per year plus your retirement. Wouldn't that be better than wasting your time with this blog. Think about it, an extra paycheck coming into the house.

      Delete
    4. Out of your hair and free reign for your graft, right?

      Delete
  51. Dear Gadfly,
    First things first, between now and 1/1/16 a Pope may be born. The focus needs to be on the current Supervisor and his crowd. Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Conway and 1:46 raise many valid concerns which need to be addressed in 2014. Let's keep asking questions about those issues.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Just to be clear....starting with the "Malone" thingy, you can speculate about who wrote what. I posted it to illustrate the profound level of stupidity those who run things around here live on. This Town's government is in deep do-do because of who citizens have allowed to have control. It will change when the public gets fed up enough, and than can't happen without publicity.

    I agree with 8:57. Both Parties are treating government as a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  53. New York State Attorney General Office. The division is the one that investigates clowns like these people that are running and involved with this town.Get every one to call they will listen.

    ReplyDelete
  54. There's a comment on Talks about the Matters article in the Advertiser yesterday which mentions an "Opinion" of the Chief Judge related to political party officers being employed by the Court system. Well, it's not an Opinion, it's a RULE, and it reads like this:

    "(e) Political organizations. No employee of the Unified Court System may hold an elective office in a political party, or a club or organization related to a political party, except that an employee maybe a delegate to a judicial nominating convention or a member of a county committee other than the executive committee of a county committee."

    I'm surprised that our local Town justices have not seen to it that the Rules of the Chief Judge are enforced in their courtrooms.

    Here's the link for them:

    http://www.nycourts.gov/RULES/chiefjudge/50.shtml#05

    ReplyDelete
  55. @ 9:34 AM, The Ethics Board should also take a look at the Town's Code of Ethics. Ms. Terry is listed as a member of the Town Democratic Committee and of course Deputy Supervisor Mr. Gilbert is listed as the Vice Chairperson of the County Conservative Party Committee. Why won't at least one of the Langley/DeF appointed Town Attorneys take a look at this?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Good point about the ethics board and the ethics code. Under the ethics code, certain town employees are required to file financial disclosure forms by April 15th. Before filing, they might very well want to consult with legal counsel since at least two of the ethics board members (Ms. Terry and Mr. Gilbert) might be serving illegally due to their partisan political party affiliations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adopted Ethics Code is FINALLY on the Town's web site ...

      http://eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/67-board-of-ethics


      Section 19 - Board of Ethics(a)(6) Political Activity. The members of such board shall not function as an officer (the chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, treasurer or other elected or appointed office holder) or committee member of either a political party or a political organization.

      Delete
    2. What say you, Ms. Terry and Mr. Gilbert?

      Delete
    3. And what does Mr. DeFruscio say about the violation of the Rules of the Chief Judge?

      Delete
  57. Public Information

    Ever since questions were banned from the public comment period at town board meetings it has been difficult for members of the public to get answers to important questions. The attitude of public officials of both parties seems to have been that if you want to know something, get your checkbook out and file a Freedom of Information request. That we have to pay for public information reflects badly on our town and casts doubt on all of the promises we’ve been given of an open, transparent and accountable government.

    The first three months of the new majority has witnessed some enhancements in the amount of information we are given, partly through their efforts and partly through the willingness of the minority to engage in debate and provoke responses from their counterparts. Last month’s Supervisor’s message on the town website was more detailed than previous messages and articles like Mary Ann Matters published in yesterday’s Advertiser help to communicate the goals and objectives of our town board. Phil Malone and Sue Mangold have proven to be an effective minority as they debate and propose resolutions which require a response from the majority: these exchanges provide insight into the thinking of members of the majority.

    But there is still no mechanism for the public to question the direction and purpose of our town government. I would love to see the question and answer aspect of the public comment period be restored but Keith Langley has a less combative nature than Rick McCabe and it seems highly unlikely he wants to draw that kind of fire. Other options should be explored. I would like to see an electronic monthly newsletter on the town website that allows residents to ask questions and receive responses. The Deputy Supervisor Ed Gilbert is a good writer and former moderator of an excellent blog on the Times Union website. He could moderate such a newsletter.

    Another option would be for the Supervisor to arrange for public information sessions prior to town board meetings. As an example, consider the audit mess. Eileen Grant has consistently raised this issue and done so in a calm professional manner: her interest has not been critical of anyone but simply based in an earnest desire to know what’s going on. The Supervisor could task the Comptroller, Mr. Phillips, with the assignment of doing a fifteen minute presentation before the next town board meeting on this subject. This approach would be a time-delayed format in which key questions raised at one town board meeting could be answered at the next meeting by the person with the best knowledge of the subject. The Supervisor wouldn’t be ambushed or surprised and the public would receive information without having to pay for it twice (once in taxes, once in FOIL copying fees).

    There are many other possibilities but as it stands now all we are getting from our town government is the spin they want to provide on issues of their choosing and random details that may slip out when the minority confronts them on specific resolutions. It’s early in life of this majority but this is an issue that should be addressed as quickly as possible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack:

      People may remember the shooting incidents up on Park Ridge. The town board meeting when those incidents were discussed had the feel of a real, old time town hall meeting. There was an exchange. There was open dialogue. There was constructive conversation. No doubt that meeting showed the effectiveness of a real Q&A.

      But the all time best example of openness and engagement is the Ethics Board meetings during the period you were the chairperson. Those meetings actually sought to engage the public in the discussion between the Ethics Board members. It was revolutionary in the context of open, public and extraordinarily well run meetings.

      Supervisor Langley clearly fears openness and engagement with the public. Why does not matter but the withdrawal of elected representatives from the very people there were elected to represent is not a positive development.

      Your suggestions are, like all your writing and verbal comments, in the spirit of making things better. Now, how to get the majority to listen?

      Delete
  58. Tom Grant, the elderMarch 28, 2014 at 12:05 PM

    Dear Jack,

    I am very interested in further exploring your proposal for public information sessions prior to town board meetings. As you note, these sessions would allow subject matter staff an opportunity to report and respond to questions from the attending general public.

    And, thanks to the Gadfly's You Tube postings, members of the general public and interested media unable to attend will also have access to this information.

    Most importantly, our elected Town Board members would receive detailed information from the Town's professional staff well in advance of the next Town Board meeting.

    Your proposal, if enacted, would allow the Town of East Greenbush to model a more deliberative and transparent governmental process which I am sure would prove to be the envy of other local governments.

    All the best,

    Tom

    ReplyDelete
  59. Please check out Jack's comment on Talks at 3:43. It's an excellent piece. He's kinder than I would have been. But we know that.

    I'm saddened and concerned that the SWF has really blown opportunity after opportunity to really make a difference in the way government is done around here. I attribute that to the ham-handed attempts at bossism on the part of the Rep. Party Chairman and followers who promised one thing and then fell in line. Telling people to FOIL the financial impact of the Organizational Meeting is the first example that comes to mind. Mr. Langley needs a new "cabinet" or he's toast. The advice he's getting for the conduct of his administration is perpetuating a train wreck.

    ReplyDelete
  60. The Talks bloggers are currently touting the recent voting records and comments of Mangold and Malone. How nice and how convenient to forget the fiscal mess they, as members of the former majority, got and kept the town in.

    Langley, Matters and DiMartino are doing no better. Or if they are they seem determined to hide everything and anything from public exposure.

    People think the Langley election has accomplished nothing. Those people are mostly correct with one huge, huge exception.

    The Langley election and the subsequent DiMartino and Matters elections showed all East Greenbush politicians, and their minions, that voters want positive change and no politician is invulnerable and free of accountability.

    Keith, the voters took down Rick McCabe. If you don't get off your lazy butt and start doing your job with the majority you have whined about for two years the exact same thing will happen to you. And you will deserve it.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I believe Mangold and Malone have finally learned from the last election that EG voters want open and accountable government that stands for fiscal prudence. They seem to have discovered, better late than never, that reform measures aren't all bad and that good government is also good politics. Malone and Mangold have reached out to Town residents that haven't agreed with them in the past. They seem to be carefully listening to the concerns and suggestions of people outside of their comfort zones..
    Keith Langley on the other hand has become even more insular during his three months as the leader of his new majority. He has made a mockery of the SWF campaign promises outlined in the Advertiser during the last campaign season. He has refused to share the results of the audits the taxpayers paid for, he has refused to share the monthly expenditure reports with all TB members and the general public and he has appointed people to positions in the Town Court and the Ethics Board who are currently serving as members and officers of partisan Political Party Committees in direct violation of the Rules of the Chief Judge and the Town Ethics code.
    We have seen that Keith Langley is not interested in reform or open government. We have seen that Keith Langley is not interested in public discussions or questions and we have seen that Keith Langley prefers to deal with controversial issues at Special TB meetings on Friday mornings, where public discussion of these issues is prohibited.
    Sue Mangold and Phil Malone at least give the appearance, as evidenced by their substantive work as a TB minority over the last three months, of listening to and responding to the reasonable concerns of the people they were elected to represent. Kudos to them!!
    In light of the failed leadership of Keith Langley and his SWF majority, I would encourage other reform minded people to take a close look at the actions and positions of all of their elected TB members. The results may surprise you!!

    ReplyDelete
  62. Several of us have tried to acquaint DeFruscio, Langley and Gilbert with the concept of "political base" on a number of occasions. They seen not to be able to understand it. They had one, and they abandoned it. DeFruscio has convinced Langley that he won his election because he was "likable," not because the Dem he defeated was discredited. The first Langley/DeF move was to warn adherents to stay away from "reform people."

    The big news evolving is that reformed government is the new political base in East Greenbush. And to be successful, the old "machine" ways of doing political business need to be abandoned. It's true, good government is good politics.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear Gadfly,
    I truly admire your persistence in attempting to work with Langley and DeFruscio. I guess I'm just not as patient as you are. My sense of them is they blatantly misled the voters during the campaign and never intended to follow up on anything that would benefit the town, unless it also directly benefited themselves and their families.
    Sadly, I have concluded they are just both involved in government for only each other and not the people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When they're gone, and they will be on the present course, I want them to know that they had every chance to listen - and argue if they have a point. All some of us got told was "shut up and don't ask questions or criticize." The resulting enemies list from them is just too Nixonian.

      I think it's really sad that the platform articulated in the Advertiser has been blocked.

      Delete
    2. How very true 7:21. There are many examples daily of the malfeasance commited by Langley and Co.
      Yes , I am an insider who witnesses some of the mischief daily.

      Delete
    3. Whats truly sad is that defruscio accomplished one of the greatest ruse to ever be pulled on the voters of EGB. He managed to bait,hook and reel in voters with the ridiculous SWF campaign. Many of those voters are still stinging after realizing they ere had by a political operative with no intentions of fulfilling any of those campaign promises.

      Delete
  64. Both sides want to enrich themselves. We the voters need to reach out to the governor to be able to stop the madness. We should be able to control the finances and have accessible govt. Otherwise the town should have sanctions put against it by the state for not governing right. The people should be able to sue in public court all those who have stolen from the city whether they be employee or politician. All the corruption should be dealt with by the state. What we need is the governor to step in and order an audit of everything so that the town gives in or faces the lack of money from the state. We should be able to petition the state as an entire group to have the state step in and see what the hell is going on. If the city officials don't step aside they should all be charged with obstruction and in the meantime we should be able to force a recall. Neither side wants to change the way they run because they are all stealing from us. They all realized that it was better to keep the thievery under wraps by giving out jobs to family. Then they realized that instead of getting those in trouble it was easier to keep on stealing from east greenbush then to expose it. Basically new people, new con games same old acts of thievery and bribery. Both sides know its far more lucrative to be corrupt then to be honest. The politicians of east greenbush have learned it pays more to be corrupt then to be honest. And that is why neither side will do anything.

    ReplyDelete
  65. To 9:47 AM,

    I'm cautiously optimistic Councilpersons Mangold and Malone are beginning to head in the right good government direction, based on their Town Board votes and proposals over the past three months. Of course I'll continue to keep a close eye on them.

    I am not optimistic at all about the direction of government under Supervisor Keith Langley and his asked for SWF majority, again based on their votes and proposals over the past three months. I will continue to keep a close eye on them as well.

    Keith Langley and Chris DeFruscio have openly embraced and adopted the failed, obstructionist policies of the past. Unlike Mr. Langley and Mr. DeFruscio, it is very possible Sue Mangold and Phil Malone may have learned from those past mistakes.


    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous 9:47:

    The culture of politics in East Greenbush is an archaic mix of inefficiency and insider trading. Both sides play the same game, use the same 'rules,' and expect the same spoils when they win. Attending town board meetings since the new majority has taken over makes you feel like you're in an alternative universe. The republicans are now wielding power and hiding public information like the democrats did when they were in charge and the democrats are talking good government like the republicans did when they were on the outside. They've literally swapped scripts. And if this group of democrats gets back in charge in two years they'll swap back and nothing will change. Again. The culture and expectations of politics in this town need to change but that can only happen if the voters start paying attention. In a democracy you usually get the government you deserve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack, agreed about both sides at this time but I firmly believe that we can have something better in the future... not just another switch in rolls. For example, we missed a golden opportunty to elect Cheryl Valley because we were schnookered by SWF. We cannot let that happen again. We must look at each candidate individually, insist on public debate and really know what we are doing. We cannot miss another opportunity to elect a fair. open candidate.
      There are good people that won't double cross us Langley style. They are you, Cheryl, and Ann Taylor. There is still time for others to be identified before election time.
      Further, we should all remember that SWF was elected for 4 years. If we get a good Supervisor in, they will, hopefully, be comfortable working with a new leader.

      Delete
  67. Dear Mr. Conway,
    Thanks for the thoughtful post. I have just a slight qwibble with it. Other than being persuaded by Rick Matters to (silently) support a meaningful Ethics Resolution, Supervisor Langley did not do anything to advance good government when he was on the outside as a member of the Town Board's minority. In fact, as I'm sure you will recall, he instead reached out to the quintessential insider, Rick McCabe, for financial and media advice.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Langley hasn't swapped scripts at all. He is what he has always been. It's just more noticeable now that he (Defruscio) is in charge.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Jack, please consider a run, though I couldn't help too much financially would be happy to stump for you.

    ReplyDelete
  70. The Town needs LEADERS not MANAGERS....dem or rep shouldn't matter. Our town is in trouble, what will it take to get it back on track. We are a laughing matter to some of our adjoining neighbors. Our PD and DPW are some of the finest out there, too bad they are being held back because of politics. Ethics, what is that...certainly not operating in Town Hall, what happened to the days of trying to make our town the best?

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ 9:50 PM,

    We are very fortunate in East Greenbush to have BOTH a great LEADER and a great MANAGER in our Supervisor-for-life, Keith Langley.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you have a perscription for the drugs you must be on ???
      What planet are you viewing this from ???

      Good grief

      Delete
  72. he must be hiding his leadership and management skills in his back pocket cause he's not demonstrated them to anyone with two eyes and a brain

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dwight has updated his blog on what has been going on (illegally) on Thompson Hill. Here's the link:

    http://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/some-questions-for-the-town-board/

    Looks to me like the Town Board and Town Officials responsible are doing the old Ostrich routine with their heads in the sand hoping the whole thing will go away. I hope some Judicial intervention is in the wings quickly for this debacle. Looks like this is a real "insider" project. More mischief.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dwight shows some remarkable restraint in asking all these questions in a direct and professional manner while it looks like our Town Officials have afforded him no such respect.

      He has given them every opportunity to do the right thing. they appear to have done several wrong things instead. I hope he now goes after the alleged perps with the full force of the law

      Delete
  74. Tom Grant, the elderApril 3, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    Dear Gadfly,

    Today's date is April 3, 2014.

    Why isn't the information Mr. Jenkins is seeking readily accessible to the general public on the Town's website?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Tom.....Seems to me that if this project had followed lawful processes, all materials prescribed by law would be available to the public. The real "ringer" in all this is that the minutes of the alleged meeting which allegedly approved the final Plan are supposed to be FOILED for. Pretty much of a "give away" that all is not Kosher. Would be nice if a Court of Law could sort it all out and land on the perps like a ton of bricks.

    ReplyDelete
  76. That's the million dollar question (for some, anyway) Tom. I just came from the County Clerk's office and reviewed the plat on file. It was actually signed the first time in September 2013 but was that stamp was "X"-ed out because it wasn't submitted within 60 days of the final approval, per the County Court Clerk who showed me the map. The stamp right above it was signed off on January 15, 2014 and stamped in by the County the very next day at 10:15 AM. There still wasn't any "event" that anyone has been able to point me to other than a three year old, outdated, revised without public hearing Preliminary Approval. So yes, Tom, why isn't the information available? At least the County makes an effort. Dwight

    ReplyDelete
  77. How about this....FBI investigation seems to be in order here, what a shame to think that our town has gone in this direction, not such a nice place to raise a family anymore. I hope that someone is working on a plan for the next election.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most assuredly.....many are working already on the next election. Notes are being taken, articles kept and meetings recorded.
      Bye~bye Denfruscion and all your little minions !

      Delete