Sunday, April 6, 2014

Governance by Avoidance



Well the Langley administration (the “Smart Way Forward”) now has its fingerprints on some of the mischief which had its beginning with the previous administration.  When it comes to governmental sleaze, they’re all in bed together.  I’m re-printing below a couple of Posts by Dwight Jenkins which outline the mischief going on on Thompson Hill.  It’s a scandal run by the patrons of both Parties. 

It looks like Langley's Planning Board Chairman signed off on a Plat approval for which there is no Planning Board approved Plat Plan.  And he did it after a meeting which never happened pursuant to a resolution which was never passed.  And the PB secretary is saying that Mr. Jenkins has to FOIL for the minutes of the meeting that never happened that are supposed to be a public record. 

Seems to me that a false instrument was offered for filing which led to the issuance of governmental permits and approvals.  The Town Board should be acting to correct this perpetual mischief.  But they have their collective heads down the Rabbit Hole.  It’s not like they haven’t been notified.  Time to follow the money. 

Here’s the first from Dwight:

“I live next to a planned cluster development that has been stymied for many years now because it never really came close to Town planning and zoning laws. Until now. But not really, it’s just that someone seems to have given the project the go-ahead anyway. Twenty-three units on 19.83 acres situated on the most scenic hilltop in Town, declared under the SEQRA reporting requirements to have no scenic views to be considered, with a lawsuit pending on the sewer system, with a preliminary project plat approval from three years ago that looks significantly different than the current plan, which was never finally approved by Planning Board resolution as required by NYS planning law but instead was just signed into being by the Planning Board chairman back in January, shortly after the Republican purges and in-between the regularly scheduled meetings of 1/8/14 and 1/22/14, which means there are no published minutes and hence no way for the public to know that the project was moving forward. Ya know how we knew? When we saw the heavy equipment you see digging a foundation you don’t see. The whole project has moved forward in a dark, subterranean manner, right down to the re-paving of the pot-holed Kunar Province road that we called home for eighteen years, made possible at a discount price through an interesting and unusual set of circumstances surrounding the State/Federal money pouring in for our latest traffic roundabout. And I’m told by the Town that everything is in order. Yes, I love the roundabout, but I hate going round in circles on a highly dubious subdivision being run by shadowy Town figures and hidden promises. It’s all being FOIL’ed, the dots being slowly connected, and the Town Board has been put on notice, but I thought you should be aware of just how we do business here.”

And the Second from Dwight:

“Now that “Thompson Way” has its first foundation in progress, a few questions for the Town Board:
I have e-mailed each Town Board member, the Supervisor and Deputy Supervisor, the Town Clerk and Planning Clerk, the Building Inspector, and the Planning Attorney about the obvious, arbitrary and capricious nature of the Town’s approach to this project. Twice, in some cases. I referred to State Planning Law, sections 276 and 277, which require public hearings at different points along the road to development as well as a Planning Board resolution and vote on a Final Plat before the Chairman signs off on the Plat and copies go out to the Planning Secretary and to the County. Why did I get only one erroneous response from someone the Supervisor delegated to respond to me? Why did I get a cursory response from Phil Malone and Sue Mangold, but no one else? Why has the Planning department told me I have to FOIL the Town Clerk for the Planning Board minutes that gave final approval to this project on a date when no Planning Board meeting was scheduled or recorded publicly? Why did I never get a response from the Town Clerk’s office when I questioned the legitimacy of this answer? Why can’t the Planning Department tell me it’s okay to come down and review the Final Plat and supporting documents when all of those materials are supposed to be on file within 5 days of approval? What would happen if an outside investigatory agency/agencies started looking into this project, as recently happened in Troy with that interesting abandoned building that was hastily torn down behind the new “Bombers” restaurant? What would they uncover?  What would happen if an injunction was filed to stop the “Thompson Way” project until a court could unravel the Town’s actions in this case? How would the project’s bonding agency react to the potential delay? How would the project’s counsel react to a judge’s order to cease building, when the Town gave it’s “approval” to the project? Would he or she file suit against the Town?
These are all questions that the Town Board should have considered in the past, and certainly should be acting on even now. An edifice is in fact being built. More than one…”

75 comments:

  1. Both sides realize its better to steal and say nothing then rat out your opponent. That way everyone wins and they trade off every few years but still retain their ability to steal.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This town was at one time a good place to live, but it seems like as time goes by it is getting worse. It doesn't matter what side these politicians sit on they all seem to be the same. We need some good honest people to get elected, not people that say they are, but people that actually are.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This might be a nice issue to let Times Union Reporter Brendan Lyons know about. Mr. Lyons has been uncovering a number of previously unpublicized and questionable local government land deals recently. He might also be interested in the ongoing Thompson Hill shenanigans, particularly relating to the Town's unlawful reluctance to provide required public information.
    Interested readers might recall Mr. Lyons as the investigative reporter who also uncovered the Chris DeFruscio/Martha Andiago connection at the end of the 2011 East Greenbush campaign season. Search the name "Chris DeFruscio" on the Times-Union website for further information.

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the problems here is the information vacuum caused by the refusal of town officials (of both parties) to engage in constructive dialogue with residents. If you ask a question or a series of questions as Dwight does here, you're treated like an enemy who must be silenced or defeated. It would be so much easier to just answer the questions. Now that this matter has been brought to the town's attention, rather than engage in the reflexive cover-up that comes so naturally to politicians, they should launch an internal investigation into the matter. When they have all the facts they should let the public know what they found. Then they should do the right thing and let the chips fall where they will. People have to take responsibility for their actions. When it comes to the process of governing sins of omission can be as costly as sins of commission.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mr. Conway:

      You neglet a few things:

      1.) The people who you propose do the investigation are akin to the fox watching the chicken house. You don't honestly expect people who are fundamentally opposed to open, transparent government to suddenly become something else do you?
      2.) The citizens of East Greenbush have been repeatedely lied to. Often. By members of both political parties. Examples are many. They lie because it is both their interest to lie and because it is their very nature to lie.
      3.) They are confident they can pull this latest circumvention of the law without a scratch on them. What are you going to do? File an ethics complaint to a politically stacked ethics board? Do think there is a prayer in hell Ed Gilbert will look at anything honestly and objectively?

      Nope, East Greenbush is stuck with the latest set of political thugs. Your suggestions are excellent. And they fall on the deaf ears of uncaring, crooked, stupid, arrogant politicians. That's you: Langley, DeFruscio, Gilbert, Matters, DiMartino, Mangold and Malone and your flunkies in Planning.

      Get real Mr. Conway. The die is cast.

      Delete
  5. All along in this process, the elected and appointed officials (no matter which administration) have known what the Law is related to the processes to be followed. It's there in black and white, and they know very well what they are doing. They conduct business with a wink and nod or a blank stare in the face of a question They have chosen to ignore the law. People who do that should not be elected or appointed.

    The hand in the cookie jar is a bit more obvious in this one because of the rush job at the first of the year. Somebody needed something real quick.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'd love to see an investigative journalist attempt to interview the supervisor and the planning board chairperson on this. A no comment or non responsive answer would speak volumes and could attract the attention of outside legal authorities

    ReplyDelete
  7. Right on target again you clowns. The projects been going on for 9 years now that's rushing it through. What's Dwight going to do when the casino comes up there. Larry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear 5:10 PM,
      I suggest you re-read the first item from Dwight (as quoted in the above 12:06 PM posting. The reason the project has "been going on for 9 years" is "because it never really came close to Town planning and zoning laws."

      Delete
  8. Dear Larry.....I don't give a tinkers damn how long the project has been "going on." The job of appointed officials is to make sure that it follows the law. If they can't, they should be replaced by those that can - for the protection of all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Casino up here. Good one "Larry," though if you thought you could get away with it you'd probably try. Somehow you manged to get most of the casino chips falling your way over those 9 years: a change in Zoning from R-B to R-B With Sewer and Water (allowing for greater density); one of only two town exclusions to the 6th DEC Order on Consent; a "failed" septic system (i.e. broken pipe under the road, maybe a $500 fix?) that allowed the County to declare the need for connection to sewer, even though they didn't send their inspector up until a week AFTER approval, and even then he barely got out of the vehicle and did no soils testing; a convenient sewer run up past the mansion and the pipe break all the way to the southern edge of the proposed project boundary; a dramatic shift in SEQRA reporting from "Yes" to scenic views involved to "No scenic views" to consider; no public hearing on the plat change from the sewer system hooking up west of Route 4 to a sewer run straight up Thompson Hill Rd; an initial victory in Saratoga County Court on the disputed use of another homeowner's land for that long run; no Planning Board resolution/vote for a Final Plat approval, as required by statewide Town Planning Law; a Final Plat filed with the County despite nothing more than a signature from the Planning Board chairman on 1/15/14; a building permit without that Planning Board Final Plat approval; and Town Hall stalling and dissembling on my requests for documents such that the FOIL ready dates would probably put me beyond the 30-day window for filing an Article 78 proceeding, assuming a judge would buy my argument that you can't appeal what you don't know about because it isn't anywhere in the public record and perhaps doesn't even exist; and finally, a compliant Town Board that looked the other way all along the way. So it looks like you've done well this time. Many hands make light work. But since you're the only one that seems to be willing to publicly discuss it with me, why the rush job on the Planning Board Final Plat approval? Why didn't the Planning Board put it on an agenda and vote on it? You never addressed that, even though it is the crux of the argument and a requirement of the law. Since we're using the gambling motif, I'll bet you don't have an answer for that one. Dwight

    ReplyDelete
  10. isn't there a planning board meeting Wednesday? might be a good time to address the chairman or attorney.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am also a resident of Thompson Hill Rd. What I find odd is that when my wife and I are out walking, we see Rich Benko the Former Town Engineer/ Advisor to the Planning Board, onsite at the Thompson Way project.This has been more than a few times. Has Benko secured a job with the developers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the Ethics Law passed training should have been conducted by the Town. If it had, Beko would have an understanding of his responsibilities related to employment bars. If a professional exit interview was conducted expectations could have been reinforced. Instead we have the same old sloppy unprofessional Langley conduct which leaves us with no protection against unethical behavior. The really sad thing is that Benko may be perfectly innocent but the town has no systemic way to determine that.

      Delete
    2. Key Phrase here folks - " Former Town Engineer"....which means he is not held accountable to the Ethics Board...and just an FYI..there was no "exit interview" of any former Town employees by this gaggle of fools now running Town Hall

      Delete
    3. I agree with 10:20 AM, The issue is clearly with the administration of the Langley/Glibert Ethics Board. It looks to me as if the "former Town Engineer" is just trying to make a living after he was unceremoniously dismissed by Langley on the date of the organizational meeting just two hours after Langley assured him he was being reappointed.
      The problem is Langley's continued inability to understand the laws and codes enacted to monitor the ethical and budgetary responsibilities of certain town officials.
      The Buck Stops with Mr. Langley, regarding the current Thompson Way project.
      The public deserves an explanation from Mr. Langley about this important issue. Instead, all we hear from Mr. Langley are recycled press releases from the State Department of Transportation about its "work on local roads throughout the Capital District" and media updates from the Starbucks corporate offices about the location of its new Starbucks shop with its proposed outdoor seating.

      Delete
  12. @ 6:52 AM,

    Has the Langley Ethics Board started its training of Town Employees (and of itself) yet? This Thompson Rd.l situation might prove to be a good case study for them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Don't we deserve a public explanation from the Supervisor/Planning Chair about the sign-off without a meeting or Resolution which led to permits issued and construction started? Isn't this the kind of mischief on which the perps depend over and over to "move things along?" Joe had his "paperwork" so his butt's covered. Who leaned on the PB Chair to do what he did. Seems like he's been "had."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Don, just came from the Planning Board meeting. Only two items on the agenda, both up for Final Site Plan approvals. There were resolutions and votes on the final approvals, sending both projects now to the Town Board for really final approval. Obviously they know HOW to follow the laws that guide Town Planning. But do they always? The "Thompson Way" project, being a major subdivision, doesn't need Town Board approval. The Planning Board gives its final plat approval, which they didn't do in this case unless they did it between the regularly scheduled board meetings of 1/8/14 and 1/22/14. But that seems unlikely. If it is true that a Planning Board Chairman signed off on a Final Plat without Planning Board approval, no matter who he is or how nice he is, he should be told that his services are no longer needed in that realm. It puts the Town at too great a risk, and it puts projects before the board at unnecessary risk too. This "Thompson Way" project was practically a done deal, and arguably legal, all except for the last step: Final Plat approval from the Board as the result of a resolution and a vote. So why the sudden shortcut? Mr. Langley, Mr. Danaher, you have both been briefed on the situation. Dwight Jenkins

    ReplyDelete
  15. It doesn't surprise me. It just makes me sick to my stomach. A year or two ago the person that wanted to buy the house next door to us had plans to put in a 40 dog kennel, in a residential area! The lady came to our house from the town to tell us, as she was required to, but added "there's nothing you can do, it's already approved". EXCUSE ME?! There's NOTHING we can do? We fought and we fought and we fought and FINALLY got it turned down, on a technicality in our favor.

    This town is a freaking joke.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Tom Grant, the elderApril 11, 2014 at 7:40 AM

    Dear Gadfly,
    There is a new post on Talks, highlighting a series of what I believe to be good government reform measures sponsored by Councilpersons Mangold and Malone. These resolutions are scheduled to be considered by the full Town Board at its April 16 meeting. Kudos to Sue and Phil for advancing these proposals!!
    All the best,
    Tom

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's a link to the pre-board agenda with the resolutions Tom mentions:

      http://www.eastgreenbush.org/downloads/doc_download/1187-4102014-pre-board-agenda

      Sue and Phil are to be congratulated for building a minority record.

      Delete
  17. Sue and Phil's reform measures and minority record are greatly appreciated. Special thanks for resolution 67-2014 RESOLUTION FOR REVIEW OF ALL NON-PAYROLL EXPENDITURES AND CHARGES ON A MONTHLY BASIS.
    Thank you to Sue and Phil! You deserve public support for these reform measures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann, I'd be willing to bet the house it doesn't pass. Langley and MAM don't want it to pass. I was at the pre-board and on the way down the hallway after the meeting, Phil asked MAM a serious question to which she should have known the answer. Instead, Phil got a nasty, mean,sarcastic response.
      SWF is in trouble and its starting to become very visible.

      Delete
  18. Right you are, folks. Good government advocates from both political parties can and should support these resolutions.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Folks, be sure to speak up at the Board Meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  20. To Anonymous April 11, 2014 at 12:24 PM:
    If Langley doesn't pass it he should have the sense to provide his reasoning. These are resolutions that are common sense. Passing these resolutions would show both parties are working together for the benefit of the Town. To "NAY" them without offering a sensible reason is simply playing politics which is just so wrong, especially for this Town and the financial condition it is in. If Langley wants to keep his job next November, he may want to work with these resolutions. Who knows...he may surprise us all and vote in favor of them. If he doesn't and if he has no reason for his "NAY" than he is simply being antagonistic and deserves to be hoisted from his chair and given his walking papers next November.
    Good for Sue and Phil for advancing these resolutions! Great way to represent the residents!

    ReplyDelete
  21. @2:55 PM, The only reason for any of the town board members to vote against these resolutions is to continue the failed, self dealing ways of the past. It's possible a brighter day is coming for the people of east greenbush. Thank you Sue and Phil for giving us all some reason for believing better times are ahead.
    Does Keith Langley have the smarts to realize that a yes vote is a vote for progress and a no vote is a vote for the continued antics of chris defruscio? We will find out at the wednesday meeting. I'll be paying close attention to the voting.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I consider myself to be a good government advocate and I am not a member of either the Republican or Democratic Party. Although, in my younger days, I was an enrolled Republican. During the last election, I voted for the Smart Way Forward Candidates, Ms DiMartino and Ms. Matters. I did so based on their Advertiser position papers. I had very high hopes for them. Unfortunately, since their election, it looks to me as if they have abandoned their reform based, good government agenda. Perhaps the most disturbing example for me was their appointment of the Deputy Supervisor to a position on the Ethics Board. This appointment demonstrated a basic misunderstanding of the role of an independent ethics board. The fact that Mr Langley, Ms. DiMartino and Ms. Matters voted to place an official directly reporting to the Supervisor to a Board of Ethics is in itself unethical.
    For whatever reasons, Councilpersons Mangold and Malone have sponsored four good government reform measures to be voted on at the April 16th Town Board meeting. It doesn't matter to me what their motives may or may not be. The bottom line is that Ms. Mangold and Mr. Malone have placed these reform measures on the Town Board agenda, while the self-professed reformers Mr. Langley, Ms DiMartino and Ms. Matters have not.
    This is crunch time for reform in East Greenbush. If Mr. Langley, Ms DiMartino and Ms. Matters sincerely believe in open and transparent government they will join Ms. Mangold and Mr. Malone in voting for these common sense measures.
    A no vote from Mr. Langley, Ms. DiMartino and Ms. Matters will clearly demonstrate to all that they had no intention of keeping the promises they made to the people of East Greenbush in their Advertiser pieces.
    To sum up, a no vote from Mr. Langley, Ms. DiMartino and Ms. Matters will expose them as liars to the people of East Greenbush.
    Voters will often tolerate a lot from their elected representatives, but they don't tolerate having their faces rubbed in lies.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I hope the town board passes the Mangold-Malone resolutions by a 5-0 vote although I fear they will split along party lines. Partisan politics is a form of tunnel vision in which all you see is the need to oppose whatever the other side is doing. In this case, there is a clear public interest in passing these resolutions and it would be a shame for the majority to ignore that. The democrats may have a hidden agenda in proposing these resolutions but if it's to make the majority look bad then it can be undermined by a 5-0 vote. Time for SWF to step up and do the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dear Mr. Conway,
    I'm not so sure the democrats have a hidden agenda in proposing these resolutions. I believe it's just as possible Councilpersons Mangold and Malone have become convinced a good government reform agenda will benefit the public interest.
    In any event, we might well begin to find out on April 16th what the Langley SWF agenda, hidden or not, is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Question to Frank on "Talks"--what "free pile being shut down at the transfer station by Langley on orders from DeFruscio" are you referring to? Why would they shut down a "Free pile of trash" and agree to pay $65k, $30k of which is tax dollars and $35k of it is insurance dollars whose premium is paid by tax dollars, for a supposed "innocence" claim by the man in charge? Honest to God---UNREAL! Without consistency with tax dollars, and consistency that follows the laws, than how can the Supervisor expect anyone to believe and trust him. Clearly the trust factor is out the window with the current Supervisor and once that is lost it is extremely difficult to regain. If people are prohibited from taking "free trash" or "free mulch" but they are expected to fork up $65k in tax dollars, between actual tax dollars and insurance payouts which are paid with premiums funded by tax dollars, to pay for the Supervisor's "indiscretion" or "misunderstanding" or "misunderstood indiscretion" or whatever it is being called, than there is no reason to trust him. Tax payers pay for that but they can no longer take from the "free pile" at the Transfer Station. UNREAL!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tom Grant, the elderApril 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM

      Dear Ann,
      With all due respect, I wouldn't characterize the free pile at the transfer station as "trash." It's probably more accurately described as reusable goods. Over the years, I've seen items such as bicycles, furniture, and tools being recycled to people having a need for them. My concern is that under the new program, these "goods" are now required to be considered as trash and are disposed of accordingly.
      All the best,
      Tom

      Delete
    2. Tom I agree completely. I don't usually take anything from the pile or even stop and look because if I did stop and look I would want to take something, and that would mean I would be coming home with stuff instead of getting rid of stuff.

      This so called junk pile is not at all junk, there is usually pretty good stuff in the pile. Sometimes there are tv's or furniture, I've seen golf clubs, and the list goes on and on. My theory is it might be junk to me, but to someone else it could be treasure.

      Delete
  26. Just saw the weather report. It looks like there is some "uncertain" weather is headed our way on Wednesday. Will the Town's Chief Weatherman, Keith Langley, decide to reschedule Wednesday's regularly scheduled 7pm Town Board meeting due to "inclement weather?"
    After all, Keith Langley and Mary Matters both seem to feel that an 8:45 AM Friday meeting time is more convenient for the town's residents. And that Friday morning time slot seemed to work out just fine for CBS6 News and NewsChannel 13.
    Keith just doesn't seem to understand that the voters "don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."
    The voters need and deserve to have a Town Supervisor who supports open, transparent and fiscally responsible government.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tom Grant, the elder---I intentionally labeled it trash. "One man's trash is another man's treasure". It was the original owner's trash and why people can no longer take it as their new treasure, seems odd. If there is an insurance reason, such as the Town would be held responsible if the item cut or caused another type of injury to the new owner than that would be understandable. If it is considered as coming from the Town because it was taken from the Transfer Station and the Town's insurance company has advised that the practice stop because of liability issues than the Town's new policy is understandable. That being said, the Town should post that notification and the reason for the end of the practice, on the Town's website and at the Transfer Station. If it is posted than the Supervisor has done his job by following the insurance company's guidance and then informing the public. If neither of those instances occurred, if the Town was not notified by insurance or some other organization and/or if the public was not informed of the reason for ending the practice than it was neglectful of the Supervisor and another case of "secrecy". Certainly, I would hope the public is not directed to FOIL for the reason why the "free pile" has become a no touch zone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I really don't understand getting rid of the free pile at the transfer station. It was of great value to the public, as many people thanked me over the past couple of years for having it. There are no liabilities associated with it and it should be continued, but good luck with that. If they are worried that someone is taking from the actual scrap metal pile, then deal with that, but why punish everyone for the actions of the few?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dave VanWormer--IF there are no liability issues, than agreed. IF the Town was losing money by allowing people to help themselves to the "free pile" than that would be understandable as well but, if that is the case, there should have been figures provided and the Town residents should be informed of how much we were losing. No liabilities and no reasons provided to the public just seems odd. Why are people no longer allowed to partake of the "free pile". Until a reason is publicized the Supervisor can probably expect more criticism, and rightfully so because he is not explaining why he shut down the "free pile". Yet we can pay a total of $65k for one person's "issues"...the same person who closed down the "free pile". Unreal!
    Dave VanWormer---you should attend the Town Board meeting tomorrow night and inquire during the "Public Session". You know the Transfer Station, you have the experience to ask the right questions. Plus, I want to see if the "Public Session" is now open to "Public Information/Answers" from the Supervisor whose salary our "Public Money" pays.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A.T.,
      Dave can ask all the questions he wants, but under the Langley "don't ask don't tell" policy he shouldn't expect to receive any answers from Mr. Langley.

      Delete
  30. As Mr. VanWormer suggests in his comment, perhaps the issue is really the other "scrap" growing legs and "walking" that is the real issue. And Ann, you addressed that as a reality some few years ago. I have a very strong feeling that this is what is going on, and instead of coming down hard on the "legs of the scrap," an oblique management "solution" is developed that leaves the real problem un-confronted.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The free pile has been in exitence forever, since the Transfer Station opened. To shut it down, suddenly, with no publication of reason is not wise. As with everything, if they informed the public and provided the reason than more of the public will understand. It's about informing the public. The free pile is a small example of again, not informing the public and supplying a reason. That was my point. It should be posted with a reason at the Transfer Station and on the Town's website.
    Plus, with the financial issues this Town has.....they pay thousands for "mistakes" and then shut down a free pile at the Transfer Station. I am all for buttoning up the finances but don't be penny wise and dollar foolish either. Be consistent. And stop the indiscretions that cost US thousands.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Looks like the "for us, or against us" political modality which sounds like what's going on around here is playing out on the stage in New Jersey. To me, it just shows that the days are numbered for this kind of behavior. For political neanderthals only. Christie, who could have been a shooting star, has turned into nothing but a bully.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Does anyone know if this Transfer Station even remotely comes close to being self-sustaining? Or are the majority of East Greenbush citizens, who do not use it, footing a good portion of the bill? I suspect the whole place is a bit of a "free pile".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In an audit by OSC over 10 years ago, there was a finding which cited "equity issues" related to the Transfer Station. The point was, just as you suggest, that the place was not self-sustaining and that most of the taxpayers who are paying for the place do not use it.

      A second issues has also arisen over the years related to what taxpayers pay to keep the place open, and that a better schedule of staffing and open hours could save substantial funds.

      Delete
    2. This is the text from the 2000 OSC audit related to the "equity issues" finding:

      "The Town Board should review the operations of the transfer station and the youth and recreation department and determine the extent to which real property taxpayers should be required to subsidize each of these activities. If the rate structure in either or both of these activities is deemed to be inadequate the Town should take steps to revise it. Among the ways to do this is to perform a rate study of local governments in the region which provide their residents with comparable services."

      Nobody has ever done anything to respond to this recommendation in any record which I have been able to find.

      Delete
  34. It's been suggested on the talks blog Ann Taylor would be a good candidate for town clerk. Agreed, however, I think Ann's name on the Republican, Conservative and Independent line for town supervisor would be of greater service to our town.Who would you like to see run for supervisor Keith Langley or Ann Taylor? I know Ann would be my choice.
    The Dems wiil be coming full bore next election . Is Keith the person you trust to fend them off? If Keith is our choice then I'll have to go democratic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. During the last election I had serious concerns about SWF and it was mostly because they promised to support Langley. I didn't vote for them but now that I see what they are doing, I realize that I should have been more active against a Langley majority. I think Ann Taylor might be the only person who could bring SWF around to think for themselves and to consider issues on their merit. I think Ann would be an excellent candidate for Supervisor.

      Delete
    2. Chris Defruscio will never allow anyone but Keith Langley to get the Republican nod for Supervisor and that will be the end of the republican party in East Greenbush. The Langley/DeFruscio partnership is unelectable.

      Delete
    3. So...1st step, get rid of Defruscio. Don't know if Ann wants to run or not but if Defruscio needs to go the Republicans should be working on that now.

      Delete
  35. If Ann primaries Keith in September, the voters will give her the nod, thus eliminating Chris having any say. Then watch how fast Chris tries to suck up to Ann. Good luck with that Chris, you can fool some but Ann has your number. I can't wait to vote for Ann.
    Ann, if you accept the challenge and run I'll reveal myself to you and will help you financially and devote a good deal of time to you election.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Gadfly--you mention Chris Christie in NJ and in the past you have made references to Nixon. I think, if you truly want to be nonpartisan and are looking for role models of good governing, be honest and admit our current National Governing body is very pathetic and are quite a group of bullies themselves. Between Benghazi, IRS targeting, NSA spying, and ObamaCare rollout incompetence it just proves that bullying and incompetence is NOT independent to either party.
    Looking at the current Town's situation, we cannot seem to find a "smidgen" of transparency and what makes it so appalling with the current administration is that is the opposite of what we were promised. Being secretive with our tax dollars is bad enough but then being a hypocrite makes it so much worse. How hard is it to simply post information on the website? How hard is it to simply post a notice at the Transfer Station regrading shutting down the free pile and why it was shut down? Informing the public is not that difficult and it is expected--at ALL LEVELS! The only difference between the Town and the current Feds is the Town can't send a drone to hover over our homes BUT the Town administration apparently believes they have the right to prohibit us from associating with one another..unreal.

    ReplyDelete
  37. If the majority of East Greenbush taxpayers do not use the transfer station why do we need it? How much does I cost the tax payer per year?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ann raises some insurance points about the treasures left at the transfer station.

    However, if I place the same treasures curbside free for the taking ... am I liable for injuries to the taker?

    ReplyDelete
  39. To AnonymousApril 16, 2014 at 4:16 PM: GREAT question! We live in such a litigious society, that is a scary thought. Maybe we are, who knows but great question!
    The point I raised was IF the Town was informed by our insurance provider. IF that is a possibility than make the public aware of it. At the meeting this evening, my understanding is the Supervisor was not aware of what was happening with the free pile and he will inquire with the Transfer Station.
    Regarding the meeeting, I want to thank both Sue Mangold and Phil Malone for the resolutions they put forth and one actually made it through! Speaking only for myself, both Sue and Phil were representing tax payers and residents very well. One item that came up was Sue submitting a FOIL for expenditures outside of payroll. Sue and Phil are Board members and should NOT have to FOIL for financial information. If they are directed to do that and/or made to feel that is necessary that is so very wrong!!!! Mary Ann Matters was correct this evening when she said this Town is in a financial crisis. Therefore the Town's financial information should be readily available to all Board members. Another item that reared its head--the audits. The audits have been stopped. WHY? Again, Mary Ann is dead on--this Town is in a financial crisis so WHY would the audits be halted? How can we have an accurate determination of where we are financially if we don't have current, accurate audits? Both Sue and Phil questioned why they were stopped; thank you to both Sue and Phil for inquiring on the audits and why they have been stopped.
    Eillen Grant has been asking about the audits at the monthly Town Board meetings, every month for many months and now we are informed they have been stopped. Why? As it looks currently that is not a wise or financially prudent decision. If the Supervisor can provide a reason for that he should put it on the website and let the residents and taxpayers, which are the people that pay for everything in the Town, know why the audits were stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  40. At last night's TB meeting, Keith Langley and Mary Matters claimed they didn't know why the free pile was stopped at the transfer station. If anyone believes that, there's a Bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale.
    At the same TB meeting Keith Langley and Mary Matters wouldn't directlyrespond about why they have stopped the outside audits from being shown to the taxpayers that paid for them. So much for financial accountability and transparency in government.
    Again, at the same TB meeting, Deputy Supervisor, County Conservative Party Vice Chairman and Langley's Town Ethics Board Chairman Edward Gilbert demanded that Councilperson Malone apologize to Supervisor Langley for some perceived slight. Setting aside the fact that Mr. Langley remained silent during the Gilbert bombast, does anyone believe that Councilperson Malone will receive anything even approaching fair and equitable treatment from the Langley/ Gilbert Ethics Board?
    C'mon Langley, Matters and Gilbert, can't you at least pretend to "govern" for all the people, instead of just your political cronies??
    One last point..Supervisor Langley was the only member of the TB to vote NO on ALL of the open government, transparency resolutions sponsored by Councilpersons Mangold and Malone.What is it about open and transparent government that Supervisor Langley doesn't like??

    ReplyDelete
  41. As a show of support to Sue and Phil, we should all consider submitting a FOIL for the monthly expenditures that are outside payroll.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think it is profoundly disturbing that the "outside" audits have apparently stopped. In my opinion it can only relate to what might be potential FINDINGS in those audits. Findings have fall-out. Some folks are getting worried.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Tom Grant, the elderApril 17, 2014 at 7:28 AM

    Good morning,
    There was good news to be found at last night's Town Board meeting for East Greenbush residents interested in open and transparent government. RESOLUTION 66-2014: EXTENDING THE OPEN PUBLIC PRIVILEGE POLICY OF THE TOWN OF EAST GREENBUSH TO SPECIAL TOWN BOARD MEETINGS, sponsored by Councilpersons Mangold and Malone, was passed by a 4 to 1 vote. This RESOLUTION was necessary because, prior to its enactment last night, interested Town residents (or anyone else for that matter) were not permitted to share their views with the Board and other attendees at Special Town Board meetings. By passing this RESOLUTION, the Town Board reaffirmed the importance of public participation and comment at all Board meetings where votes on Resolutions are scheduled.
    Kudos to Councilpersons Sue Mangold, Phil Malone, Deb DiMartino and Mary Ann Matters for voting IN FAVOR of the RESOLUTION.
    Supervisor Keith Langley voted NO, without any comment or explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Ann Taylor @ 6:56. Great idea! Foil request forms can be found at: http://eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/64-town-clerk-forms

    Gadfly @ 7:20 It is disturbing. Three years worth of audits outstanding with no resolution in sight. With Toski's return being stopped twice.

    Kudos to Eileen Grant for two great ideas:

    - give Mr. Phillips 15 minutes to explain what's going on with the audits

    - FOILing Audit costs and other Audit-related materials.

    Tom Grant @ 7:48 Excellent!

    Pete Stenson

    PS Dwight offers his observations of last night's meeting at http://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/

    ReplyDelete
  45. I've been hearing that the Audits aren't being released is because we are waiting for the Majority Members to fully understand the financial situation. It is very possible that these three people will never fully understand the financial situation. Perhaps, if given the opportunity, members of the community could be of help.

    ReplyDelete
  46. In fairness to the majority, they've been in office for less than four months and the books are clearly incoherent. Just because they may not have figured them out yet doesn't mean they won't in time. I agree that an open dialogue might help and that's why I spoke last night about the need to let information flow more freely.

    At this point the majority is treating the public as an adversary rather than people who have a legitimate right to be interested in how their business is conducted. Making the minority FOIL for information they need to represent the several thousand people who voted them into office is outrageous. Read Dwight Jenkins' summary of last night's meeting because he captures the flavor of the hostility that seems to be dominating town board meetings.

    I may be wrong about this but it seems like the minority sprung a trap and the majority walked right into it. The four open government resolutions may have been designed to make the majority look bad because it's a reflex for them to vote against anything proposed by Sue or Phil. By proposing measures to promote open government they locked the majority into a position of opposing transparency and it made them look bad. Let's not forget, though, that Mary Ann Matters and Deb DiMartino were right when they said these measures were never proposed when the democrats were in the majority. The majority should have called the bluff and supported the resolutions.

    I think the majority has made a mess of handling issues that concern the process of governing. But if they can get our financial house in order and establish some control over our taxes we'll all be singing a different song. The town voted for change, they have a legitimate mandate to govern and it's important that they succeed. I didn't ask for a better flow of information because I wanted to be critical of the majority, I did it because if they can solve the communication problems the kind of change we all want can be more easily achieved. I'm not the enemy and I don't appreciate being treated like I am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Mr. Conway,
      I agree that we should still give the benefit of the doubt to the newly elected members of the majority Councilpersons DiMartino and Matters, as they indeed have been in office for only four months. l won't begin to look at them with a more critical eye until an admittedly arbitrary time frame of six months.
      Mr. Langley, on the other hand, has been in office for 28 months. As a result, his body of "work" is fair game for closer examination. With the one exception of voting for the Rick Matters proposed Code of Ethics, the Langley record has been replete with poor personnel decisions, poor communication, and poor management skills (most recently evidenced by the decision to suddenly eliminate the free pile at the Transfer Station).
      Mr. Langley's "record" over the last 28 months has not been good, not good at all.

      Delete
  47. To Pete Stenson:
    Thank you for complimenting my suggestion. I ask you to share the suggestion on your blog as well. The more people that submit a FOIL request for the town's monthly expenditures that are outside of payroll, the more bi-partisan support Sue and Phil have and it hopefully, will help their efforts if they decide to present that resolution, or one similar, again. The same goes for Eileen Grant's suggestion to FOIL for audit costs and other audit-related materials. The more people that submit FOILs for that information, the better chances Sue and Phil may have of pushing for the continuation/results from the outside audits.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Ann,

    Thanks. I've submitted my comment to Talks.

    In deference to Linda Kennedy and Kim Carlock, let's be careful submitting too many duplicate FOILS. Although, it would only require copying the first.

    Pete Stenson

    ReplyDelete
  49. Jack Conway @ 1:13

    Perhaps Phil and Sue introduced the resos because they, as Board Members, have as much luck at getting info out of the administration as we citizens do.

    Under the prior administration, we could ask questions during the public comment section and Rick McCabe would generally respond to them. He'd also call upon department heads if issues like the 'free pile' came up.

    Pete Stenson

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jack Conway @ 1:13-- You wrote, "I may be wrong about this but it seems like the minority sprung a trap and the majority walked right into it." How sad is it that resolutions favoring open government and transparency have become "traps". To be honest, the reasons for the open government reso's are not of concern to me. This is a case of the ends justifies the means--if the means are reso's that propose open government and transparency and the ends are approval for open government than the taxpayers are the winners. We all know politics will never be removed from the governing process; it is a sad reality we have to face. If the politics leads to better governing and open governing and transparency then the politics is working in the taxpayers favor and as a taxpayer--that is what I want to see.
    Pete @ 2:10--If the FOILs are for the same request than, as you state, the first request/response can be copied. Plus, in this particular case, I believe the new Comptroller maybe doing the research and, if the Comptroller has and uses a financial software package, the request simply requires a couple of factors being typed in and the information is available in a nice neat format. My understanding is the Town uses a financial software package so it should not be a very taxing research assignment. That being said, since the Administration is not sharing audit results it maybe a very good exercise for the comptroller and Supervisor to run through--reviewing the monthly expenditures that are outside payroll. While overburdening the Comptroller is NOT the intention, the financial software does all the work, and it should not be heavy lift.

    ReplyDelete
  51. East Greenbush: We’re listening, casino developers
    Posted on April 18, 2014 at 12:39 pm by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist, http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/210992/east-greenbush-were-listening-casino-developers/

    ReplyDelete
  52. http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/211072/racino-owners-drop-saratoga-casino-plan-place-chips-on-east-greenbush/

    ReplyDelete
  53. On April 6th (see above) someone named "Larry" asks what I'm going to do when "they" place a casino up on Thompson Hill. Coincidentally a "Larry" owns the property and the project called "Thompson Way" that was illegally approved by the Planning Board on 1/15/14. This is the same project that Supervisor Langley tried to blame on the Planning Board last Wednesday night. Somehow he seems to think that corruption in the Planning Dept. is not his cup of tea and nothing to concern himself with. Of course, no one else on the Board seems to think corruption in the Planning Dept. is anything to worry about either, since none of them batted an eye, but neither did any of them contradict me. So two weeks ago this "Larry" knows about the casino plans but no one else does- it doesn't come at the pre-board meeting, but somehow finds its way onto last Wednesday's agenda, with the misleading statement that not only the State but also the County and the Town voters essentially approved November's gambling referendum. In reality, no one knows how East Greenbush taxpayers feel about a casino in their Town since that's not how the votes were tallied by the Board of Elections. East Greenbush has not yet spoken. Hell, until today most them never even saw it coming to their own town. And another troubling aspect of that resolution: Mr. Langley talks about the financial windfall a casino would bring to our fiscally strapped town. Or would it? Are we really fiscally strapped? See, even though Councilwoman Matters referred to our fiscal "crisis," and Councilwoman Mangold expressed doubt that even a casino would be enough to get us out from under our fiscal woes, we don't really know where we stand since the Supervisor continues to sit on the outside audits we paid more than $30,000 for! Apparently the new comptroller, the one Glenville let go under abnormal circumstances (Google it), is going to do his own audit of sorts. Unfortunately the State Comptroller's office doesn't think much of this idea, telling me that there is no comparison between an in-house audit and an independent outside audit, especially one that we already paid for. The whole place is corrupt. Mr. Langley, what ARE you going to do? It's time to come clean. Dwight Jenkins

    ReplyDelete
  54. Seems to me that a really legitimate reason for a Special Meeting of the Town Board would be to rescind the resolution in support of citing a Casino in East Greenbush. The Board had absolutely no right to draw the conclusion it did from the state-wide casino referendum of last November. We should have "no confidence" in the whole bunch of them.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Does anyone have any confidence at all in the ability of Keith Langley and Chris DeFruscio to negotiate the details of the proposed siting of the EG Casino? Will Langley and DeFruscio be looking out for the best interests of all Town residents or just their own families and political cronies?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Anony....The WHOLE BOARD rolled over for this resolution. The application requirements need a resolution of support from a municipality. They put this one out there with no justification based on any testing of the electorate. Based on the numbers from the Board of Elections, you can't get to "support" from the municipality of East Greenbush from the numbers from the November referendum. Just no way. They scammed the people of the Town. The whole bunch did.

      Delete
  56. Dear Gadfly,
    I agree with you about the whole bunch...
    The concern at this point is that Langley and DeFruscio are manifestly unqualified to negotiate even the more "simple" aspects of a proposed casino siting. Look how they handled the Organizational Meeting debacle. The Langley/Defruscio tag team could well lead the Town down the road to lengthy and expensive litigation, chargeable to the Town's taxpayers. This is a high stakes proposal, with some real money behind it. Based on past performance, Keith Langley has no idea what is and isn't appropriate from a governmental and ethical perspective (think of the Deputy Supervisor appointment to the Town Ethics Board.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe if we get a good Casino committee (experienced people who can negotiate and communicate because Langley can't) they will negotiate for Casino take over of the sewer bond. Why go into other amenities when we are already in debt for this one.

      Delete
  57. The way to stop this monkey business is to rescind that phoney Resolution.

    ReplyDelete