EAST
GREENBUSH TOWN BOARD SAYS “NO” TO RESIDENTS
At the East Greenbush
town board meeting of December 17th, I moved a resolution to hold a
public hearing on amending the town code of ethics to allow residents to file
ethics complaints against town employees and to request advisory opinions from
the board of ethics. Although this
resolution was the most important resolution that I’ve had the honor of
sponsoring since taking office, unfortunately, I was unable to garner enough
support for it to pass. Anytime a town
board action gives residents the opportunity to be heard and to be part of the
process of governing, it is important.
The fact that this particular resolution failed to pass was indicative
of a “double whammy” against East Greenbush
residents.
Insulting as it is to deny residents the
right to allege wrongdoing by town employees to the town’s bipartisan ethics
board and to request advisory opinions from them, not allowing residents to
even express themselves at a public hearing on the proposed ethics-code
amendment is tantamount to placing a gag order on all residents who would
choose to reach out as part of the very process that was created
for their benefit; for them to be cut out of it altogether is utterly absurd.
During the last town board meeting, some
board members expressed their concern over the notion of being impacted or even
inconvenienced by complaints submitted against them by residents. Such attitude is not only vile and blatantly
self-serving, it also shows utter contempt toward the spirit of the entire town
code of ethics.
The right of resident participation in the
town’s ethics processes is fundamental toward ensuring that the ethics board
has complete and unfettered access to all sources of grievance concerning the
conduct and performance of all town employees, be they elected or appointed. In fact, the town code of ethics exists not
to protect town employees, but to protect town residents.
I urge residents to voice your concerns on
this issue at the next town board meeting scheduled for January 21, 2015 at
7:00 p.m. at town hall. Please e-mail me
at mamatters@verizon.net if you have any
questions.
~Mary
Ann Matters, East
Greenbush Town
Board
East Greenbush Town Board
Takes a Stand Against Ethics
At its
December meeting, the East Greenbush Town Board voted against a resolution that
would allow residents to file complaints with the Board of Ethics regarding the
actions of town officials. Supervisor
Keith Langley even argued that allowing the public to file ethics complaints
could hurt his re-election bid this year.
This issue arose when the Town Attorney discovered a loophole in the
Code of Ethics that prohibits residents from filing complaints. As the former Chairperson of the Board of
Ethics, I can attest that the five members of that board who drafted the Code,
the previous Town Attorney and all five members of the Town Board who approved
the Code believed that it included the right of residents to file
complaints. Thus, Councilperson Mary Ann
Matters introduced a resolution to close the loophole but the Board rejected it
by a 3-2 vote. Supervisor Langley and
Councilpersons Sue Mangold and Deb DiMartino cast the ‘No’ votes.
The
purpose of a Code of Ethics is to assure the public that every action taken by
town officials is taken in the public interest and not for the benefit of an
individual, family, business, political party or other entity. Since only the public can truly determine its
own interests, the latest action of the East Greenbush Town Board has the
effect of disabling the Code of Ethics and rendering the Board of Ethics
unnecessary. Supervisor Langley’s comment about his re-election
prospects reflects his belief that the public interest is less important than
his own political fortunes. The Board’s
action is consistent with the cult of secrecy that has pervaded Town Government
under this Supervisor. He has scheduled
special meetings at inconvenient times to suppress resident turnout and hide
inconvenient truths such as the settlement of a discrimination suit or, most
egregiously, his effort to sneak a casino into town against the wishes of the
vast majority of town residents.
With
this latest vote against ethics, the Town Board has taken an aggressive stance
against open and accountable government, and encouraged the conflict of
interest-ridden insider trading that has been the hallmark of our local
government. Come to the January 21st
Board meeting where this resolution will be introduced again and demand ethical
conduct and accountability from a reluctant Town Board.
Jack
Conway
Three words from Mary Ann sum it up perfectly, "insulting" and "utterly absurd".
ReplyDeleteSue Mangold voted against the resolution? Should Sue not have recused herself since there were Ethics complaints submitted at Town Board meetings against her for voting on the casino despite her brother's financial interest?
ReplyDeleteI believe all citizen initiated ethics complaints were nullified by the determination that citizens could not do so.
DeleteThus, there are no valid ethics complaints against Sue Mangold.
I agree that the Ethics Law amendments Mary Ann Matters proposes should be the subject of extensive research and deliberation, perhaps even a request for an Attorney General's opinion and possible direction.
It still might come down to a "complainant said, respondent said" situation. Could be a need for sworn depositions?
Pete Stenson
Pete, the resolution is the Attorney General's interpretation. I attempted to show the AG's brochure with the interpretation at the October Ethics meeting but was shut down and told "I don't care what the Attorney General has to say." The Department of State confirms the same interpretation.
DeleteI'd like to address the "we can't ammend this law that took two years to develop" stipulation. all powerful documents get ammended when they need. - the US Constitution comes to mind. One of it's ammendments gives the right to vote. That laudable ammendment is similar to the proposed ethics ammendmentin that it fixes a wrong that is obviously the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Mary ann, it can'''t be easy to be up there with the others refusing to support your efforts.. Don't worry, we will fix that in November.
Yes 11:55 AM of course she should have recused herself. But she does not know a thing about being an ethical politician. Maybe the combo is an oxymoron in this town.
ReplyDeleteCouncilperson Malone voted in favor of the Resolution. Kudos to him!!
ReplyDeleteMr. Grant, do you honestly believe that Mr. Malone deserves kudos for voting in favor of a public hearing OR are you basically patronizing him like when you give a dog a cookie when he sits on command? Good boy! Do you also not know that Malone is probably gearing up to run for Supervisor this year and that he will grab any opportunity to vote opposite the Supr, especially if it makes him look good. Apparently, Mr. Langley hasn't figured this out yet (duh) but Malone sure has. We must not be fooled by Malone's attempts to reinvent himself solely for the purpose of getting elected. If you recall, that's how we wound up with our present Supr. Whether he's running or not, a leopard doesn't change its spots. Remember that when Phil acts contrary to his REAL self-serving, let's make a deal type of personality.
DeleteDear 4:49 PM:
DeleteThanks for asking. I do indeed believe that Mr. Malone deserves kudos for his important vote in favor of an Ethics Public Hearing. Although Phil and I don't agree on every single issue, he deserves public recognition for casting his vote to allow citizen participation and public comment on such an important matter.
I'm much more concerned with Supervisor Langley's misguided decision to vote against a public discussion on Ethics than I am by Councilperson Malone's thoughtful vote in favor of Councilperson Matters' strong Ethics Resolution.
Be well,
Tom
It is unlikely that Councilperson Malone is particularly moved by me thanking him for his recent ethics vote, but I will thank him, nevertheless. I feel that since I often urge elected officials to consider certain votes, it is my responsibility to thank them when they consider controversial issues and make hard choices. So, thank you, Phil.
DeleteI am not at all shocked that issues important to average citizens are favorably acted upon in an election year. It is a reality at all levels of government. I will seize this opportunity and thank any Board Member who casts a positive vote on issues important to me. Those issues are: Improvements to the Ethics Law and to the ethics environment in EG; any move toward fiscal improvements and a Financial Recovery Plan; the establishment of and adherence to Internal controls with a particular interest in public documents on the internet, timely posting of meeting agendas; and evening meetings with adequate notice.
Both Sue Mangold and Keith Langley have been caught on the other side of the ethics fence and that not only serves to the credibility of the resolution, but makes me highly suspect of the intentions of the third 'No' voter.
ReplyDeleteDid Deb Di Martino give a reason for her no vote other than to vote WITH the Supervisor. Has she ever spoken from the dais and expressed an independent thought or is she simply there going through the motion as if the Supervisor has two votes instead of one. Has anyone challenged her on explaining her vote or asked her to express an opinion? Sue Mangold has demonstrated that she has no business being on the board other than protecting her own interests and sorry Mr. Grant, but Phil Malone is jockeying for a shot at the Supervisor's seat. Knowing the resolution would be defeated, he only voted in favor so he could say he tried. He has proven time and again that given the chance to do the right thing in a meaningful way, he would choose not to, just like Keith. Be careful to promote him, he showed his colors when he HAD the majority. He is only trying to get it back.
ReplyDelete11:53 p.m. Board members are not required by local law to give a reason for a yes or a no vote. They are required to explain when they abstain from voting because it is their job and their duty to vote one way or another in the furtherance of the town. There are good and valid reasons for abstaining but a board member has to give the reason so that the public, who pays their salary, knows why they abstained from making a decision one way or another.
DeleteJack, as you so well know Sue Hart Mangold was adamantly opposed to the original ethics code. Her multiple, overlapping and super serious conflicts on interest would have been exposed by the financial disclosure rules.
ReplyDeleteThe good news is that recent events have exposed Sue Hart Mangold for the person she really is - and that is a politician who was elected to represent ALL the people when, in fact, all she represents is her families' financial interests.
Small wonder that she opposes any ethics code changes or reforms.
Langley people have figured out as well.
Last point, it seems to me that only politicians that behave unethically need to fear the proposed referendum. And, you know what, I think for Hart-Mangold, Langley and DiMartino that is exactly and precisely the situation.
For the good people of East Greenbush this November's election cannot come soon enough to rid us of the pestilence of Hart- Mangold and Langley !
Speaking of Ethics taking a Hit, EG Dreams has an important piece on 1 Cooper Ave. here:
ReplyDeletehttps://eastgreenbushdreams.wordpress.com/
Pete -
ReplyDeleteMunicipalities all over the State permit resident filings. North Greenbush and Clifton Park are two nearby localities that come immediately to mind. You don't need sworn depositions to process an ethics complaint and it won't necessarily come down to a 'he said, she said' situation. Take the example of the tree on Route 4. If someone filed a complaint against the DPW Commissioner that person would fill out a notarized form specifying the section of the Code they believe was violated. That person would be interviewed by the Board of Ethics as would the DPW Commissioner but this is only the beginning of the investigation. In the Route 4 case, Mr. Corellis specified a very specific set of steps he took to determine that it was his responsibility to remove the tree. The Board of Ethics would then retrace his steps, contact the people he contacted, research the options available to him, and, if necessary, talk to the DPW employees who did the job. They may want to talk to the Supervisor, former DPW Commissioners, or DPW Commissioners from other towns. At that point they would determine if the Code of Ethics had been violated or not. They would prepare a memo for the Town Board that described the complaint, outlined the course of the investigation and explained their conclusion. At this point the politics kicks in because the Town Board can decide to dismiss the recommendation, accept and publicize it, put a letter in the Commissioner's personnel file (if he violated the Code), and in the most serious case, decide to terminate an official's employment.
Is this process perfect? Absolutely not. But it does accomplish several important things. It gives residents the right to demand accountability from town officials, it provides a mechanism for an independent review of questionable actions, and it serves as a deterrent for other town officials who may be looking to cut corners. It puts town employees on notice that their work is subject to independent review and it helps clarify the proper course of action in different situations. As far as Mary Ann Matters' resolution goes, it's a simple question of whether the public should be heard on this issue at a public hearing. To deny this is to take a firm stand against transparent, accountable government and there's no excuse for it. It's amazing to me that this board doesn't see the protections this process affords them if they've done nothing wrong. Two of the three 'No' votes are currently the focus of rumors, personal attacks and accusations having to do with conflicts of interest about doings on Thompson Hill. As long as they vote 'No' they will fuel the fires of these charges and increase the public perception that they're voting 'No' because they're guilty of the accusations. An ethics complaint takes these cases off the local grapevine and puts them where they can be fairly considered and put to rest. Ask yourself why officials who always behave in an ethical manner don't want the public to have the ability to file complaints against them. They should welcome it.
Jack and Pete--another example is Sue Mangold's 2 votes for a project her family has a direct financial in and benefit. The Ethics code is very clear that is a violation. It is not a "he said, she said." It is a "this is the code and this was her vote."
ReplyDeleteWhat is Supervisor Langley so afraid of? Why would he want to continue to fuel those fires? Am I missing something here? Who in their right mind would vote against a Public Hearing regarding Ethics reform?
ReplyDelete2:13 p.m. It seems apparent that he fears that an onslaught of presumably made up complaints about him to the EB will jeopardize his chances for re-election. This also presumes that a hoard of unethical people exists in EG who have nothing better to do with their time but sit around all day making false claims against officials. To my knowledge, only Ed Gilbert has that kind of time on his hands. Since he was elected in 2012, the Supr. has had one complaint lodged against him, which is not exactly an onslaught of complaints, and that complaint was aptly explained away, but this also speaks to just how unpopular he fears he is with a whole lot of people. Otherwise, why would he worry about such a thing? Perhaps all the board members should just focus on doing their job to the best of their ability so that complaints won't need to be filed against them. But, one thing is for sure, stonewalling amendments to the ethics code is absolutely not the way to go.
DeleteAnyone who knows both Keith Langley and Phil Malone knows that they are incredibly similar when it comes to the subject of ethics except that Malone may be a little quicker on the draw, which is exactly why he seconded Matters ethics reso while Langley sat stoic and silent. However, make no mistake about it, had Malone won supervisor in 2012, he and his democrat cohorts would have ambushed us with the casino project in exactly the same way that Langley and his cohorts did. We know that's true because look at the players in Casinogate, they're virtually all 'til death do us part' democrats who stick together, even vacation together, no matter what. The fact that Langley got in bed with the "players" speaks to his inexperience and naivete where politics is concerned. Needless to say, he got badly burned, and those who played him for a fool have left him for political dead, which will become most apparent in November. In the meantime, with the dissolution of the so-called "majority," which is just another prime example of Langley's political inexperience, the Democrats smell blood in the water and are readying themselves even now for a knock down, drag out fight this year to regain control of the town. As part of this fight, we will see things like Phil Malone supporting ethics and other good government resolutions, but don't be fooled. Phil Malone is very much a part of the McCabe, Benko, Mangold, O'Brien, Bennett, Tuffy, Nero, Partak, Murphy, Cherubino, etc. bunch who saddled us with massive inter-fund borrowing debt, including the stipends, and junk bond status that will be passed on to generations of residents before it's finally paid off and now we have a multi-million dollar sewer treatment plant upgrade bill that our children's children will be paying for long into the future. This tells us that the Republican/Democrat machines of old are obsolete and must be replaced with a new way of governance. We good government reformers must stay present and involved at town meetings and keep an open mind to newcomers who will be seeking our consideration for leadership roles in 2016. We've tried the rest and over and over again it hasn't worked. How many times do we have to toggle back and forth between a two-party system before we come to the conclusion that a third-party solution might be the answer. The town of East Greenbush is in a weakened financial condition and can't take much more ineptness and/or self-serving greed before it collapses. Therefore, keep your eyes open for new alternatives. Since East Greenbush still very much needs "saving," please stay engaged and look for ways to help even it just means coming to meetings and showing interest. Thank you.
ReplyDelete2:45pm-Langley did NOT sit "stoic and silent" He spent most of Jack Conway's public comment period complaining to him and to everyone else who had the misfortune to hear that the Ethics resolution was part of a conspiracy against his campaign for re-election as Supervisor. The ethics proposal was defeated because "Casino" Keith was worried someone, or as he said "a couple of dozen people" were planning to file ethics complaints against him.
ReplyDeleteMatters and Malone voted in favor. Langley, Mangold and DiMartino voted against.
7:05 p.m. I meant that he sat "stoic and silent" when CP Matters asked for a second for her resolution. It was during the discussion period, after CP Malone seconded her motion, that Mr. Langley went into panic mode over the prospect of hoards of residents filing false complaints against him in an effort to discredit him...as if he hasn't done that to himself all on his own. What's truly amazing to me is that from April - December of last year, when the casino licensing decision was hanging over all of our heads like a black cloud for eight long months, Langley fancied us all at his mercy and there isn't a doubt in my mind that he enjoyed every minute of it. Now that a casino and a dream has evaporated right before his eyes, he's panicking over the prospect of a simple public hearing to allow residents to express their views on amending the ethics law to allow them to file ethics complaints. He now sees himself as being at the public's mercy instead of the other way around and we can't help but revel in the deliciousness of it. Ain't life grand?
Delete11:13 PM, Supervisor Langley didn't go "into panic mode over the prospect of hoards of residents filing FALSE complaints against him."
DeleteSupervisor Langley is actually terrified about the potential of a large number of TRUTHFUL complaints being filed against him.
Mr. Langley's past actions have already drawn the attention of the State Human Rights Commission in the areas of Age Discrimination, Retaliation and Public Accommodations, to name just a few.
Unfortunately, Mr. Langley has learned absolutely nothing from his past actions. As a result, Mr. Langley has left himself open to the filing of numerous valid Ethics complaints by concerned and ticked off citizens.
That's what Mr. Langley is afraid of.
Mr. Langley is in a tough spot. If he continues to vote against Ms. Matters' Ethics Resolution, the rumor mill will continue to run wild about what Mr. Langley is hiding.
On the other hand, if Mr. Langley switches his vote to support Ms. Matters' Resolution at the January 21st Town Board meeting, the non connected people will be one step closer to having the opportunity to file valid and notarized Ethics complaints against him and other unethical Town employees.
It should be an interesting Town Board meeting next Wednesday. Don't be surprised if Mr. Langley tries his best to limit public comment on Councilperson Matters' Resolution.
11:11 a.m. I was actually being facetious about "hoardes of people filing false complaints" against him but I see your point.
DeleteAnyone! How can a person file a legal complaint against the Building Inspector?
ReplyDelete8:59AM, if you're serious you can go to the inspector general who oversees his license, but when you do, you should make sure you make it very public and send information to the press as well. The only thing that will inspire the building inspector to do his job right is threatening his retirement. He is licensed by the state and btw also on a state panel so you have to make sure you keep it in the open and their feet to the fire.
ReplyDelete8:59 a.m.
ReplyDeleteCopy and paste this http: address into your browser and go from there:
http://www.dos.ny.gov/DCEA/reg_off_reg.html
9:18 a.m. Complainants should always go through proper channels and let the appropriate authorities investigate and handle complaints in an orderly, professional and legal manner. If you want to file a complaint, that's fine, but don't put the cart before the horse by "going public" or "threatening" anyone's retirement. You will need compelling evidence of wrongdoing, not just speculation or hearsay. If you have credible evidence, submit it and let the authorities take it from there.
ReplyDeleteAs a member of the Town Board I should not be commenting on these blogs but, this one is so inaccurate I feel as tho I need to respond and set the record straight. First of all, Resolution 146-2014 was Tabled, it was never a NO vote. When the minutes go on the East Greenbush web site you too will see that this was Tabled. As I have said numerous times I support ethics but I wanted this resolution Tabled because I needed to find out more about the rules of confidentiality. Supervisor Langley tabled the resolution which was seconded by Councilperson Mangold and I voted yes to have the Resolution Tabled. I felt from the first complaints we received that the process wasn't being handled correctly. There are two Advertiser articles and this whole post complaining about the NO vote that never took place. I'm floored at the inability of some to comprehend what was voted on during the meeting.
ReplyDeleteCouncilperson DiMartino
Since the Resolution could be re-introduced the next month (January), isn't Tabling the same as voting no?
DeleteCP DiMartino, as a resident who voted for you, I'm "floored" by your inability to comprehend a resolution that asked for nothing more than a public hearing? You could have voted yes on 12/17 for the public hearing and then continued on afterwards to pursue an understanding of the role that confidentiality plays vis-a-vis ethics complaints. Langley and CP Mangold, who are clearly opposed to the public hearing AND to amending the ethics law to allow for resident complaints, took advantage of your confusion and request that night to "table" the resolution, which was nothing more than a quick-thinking stall tactic on their part to put it off for another month. Therefore, they USED you for their own purposes. Please, please detach yourself from Langley, as CP Matters has, and be the independent thinker who spoke to me at my door when you were campaigning. Langley is taking you down with him and you are letting it happen. If you absolutely have to follow someone, follow CP Matters. She won't steer you wrong. Good luck.
DeleteLooks to me as if CP DiMartino is now seriously considering voting YES on CP Matters' Ethics Resolution next week. If that is so, good for her.
DeleteI agree with 6:17pm. CP DiMartino has been ill served by blindly following Keith Langley over the last 12 months. Many of us realize she is much better than Keith Langley. It's great to see her comments on this blog.
No Langley in 2015.
It's too bad CP DiMartino didn't vote to table any of the Casino resolutions last year to take the time to find out more about them and to take the time to actually listen to the plethora of information provided by groups and individuals concerned with the placement of a Casino in an area zoned residential buffer. Let's hope her new found due diligence applies to all future issues considered by the TB.
Delete8:14 p.m. Excellent point. I talked to Debbi months ago and she was solidly, unwaveringly FOR the casino and, like the rest of them, except Mary Ann, she had no intention of being talked out of it. So, a simple request for a public hearing she questions to the point of tabling the resolution but the staggering consequences a gambling casino has on a community she questions not at all and votes yes, yes, yes all the way through.
DeleteDebbi, on the issue of the Advertiser articles, it probably would have been wiser for you to just keep quiet.
The meeting was 12/17/14 or one month ago today.
ReplyDeleteWhen will the minutes be available???
Good luck with that! Video is available.
DeleteIn regards to Jack Conways post about ethics it is nice to see that you are looking at other towns ethics laws to see what works and how to better the towns.This is very important because as you can see the politicians don't understand how this should be carried out.Just as they didn't know how to determine if the tree nearColumbia Drive was on town property.When the troy road was repaved and sewers were put in back in the sixties I think that was the time a easement map was made and property lines where reestablished not 1934 or what the town said.Im sure the state or the town has this map.If the easement is 120 feet then you divide it by 2 and measure from the middle of the road 60 feet and that is where that property line is.All roads in the town vary,but its that simple.
ReplyDeleteTalking about ethics violations, it's no wonder that Langley is afraid to amend the ethics law and afraid of the law itself. According to the TU last year, he sent a "drone" to give CP Matters (a woman) a play ball or else ultimatum and he allows that blog against her. Now, the word around town hall is that he literally went postal on CP DiMartino (also a woman) last month for some reason. He could be heard actually yelling at her like an irate parent! Could it be that he intimidated her out of voting in favor the public hearing reso? How dare he? Who does he think he is threatening and intimidating all these women? Maybe more charges should be brought against him! Big man bullying women in the workplace.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Deb DiMartino sent her post. Technically, the vote was tabled but since Langley and Mangold voted for resident complaints nearly a year and a half ago their argument that they need more time is indefensible. They voted 'No' on that resolution and proved once again that in an election year 'Tabled' is the politician's way of saying 'No.' But this is the first time Deb DiMartino confronted this issue so I apologize to her if I misrepresented her vote. She has been in touch with me and raised a substantive issue that she would like to see resolved before moving forward with this resolution. It was a brave move on her part to post here and she doesn't deserve to be criticized for other things in this context.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget in September there was a public hearing proposed with regards to the composition of BOE, that too was shot down.
ReplyDeleteDear Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteKudos to Councilperson DiMartino for posting on this blog and reaching out to former Ethics Board Chair Jack Conway to discuss substantive issues. Unlike Supervisor Langley, she has always found the time to talk with interested citizens after Town Board meetings in a respectful and friendly manner. Her willingness to take a close look on the Ethics Resolution is very encouraging.
Be well,
Tom
Stand tall and be brave, Debbi. Langley only has the power over you that give him. Mary Ann proved that you can stand on your own two feet and survive. Remember, a bully is only a bully until you fight back. There are no victims in politics, only volunteers.
ReplyDeleteIf Jack Conway and Tom Grant, the elder, are willing to give Debbi the benefit of the doubt, I'm certainly able to keep an open mind about her. I hope they are right.
ReplyDeleteI have to say, I'm quite proud of Deb for posting here, and using her name too!!!
ReplyDeleteWhat we have to remember people is that these people are being pulled by their respective party's, and it is hard for them to break away. I'm sure there are things going on behind closed doors to get these people to do what the party wants them to do. Yeah I'm sure this isn't scoring me any points either, oh well!!!! :)
Jim_C- I'd love to know why the respective parties are opposed to having a public hearing on ethics reform. Good for CP DiMartino for finding out things for herself and breaking away from the Queen Langley monarchy.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 3:49PM, Maybe you should ask the party leaders that question?
DeleteI'm not saying CP DiMartino or any of the others are right for following the party they represent, but sometimes its hard to buck the party. The party controls everything
Jim, you called one of the problems with our town (not that we're alone) - we have cowards who run with maybe good intentions, but then squabble at the feet of their "party leaders." Party lines are our political system's demise, more so the people who fall for it. It is B.S. for any of these board members to do things because their party lines said so. Newsflash, Rensselaer County is corrupt - so listening to cronies and not having a mind of your own deems you a coward and maybe an idiot. It's nice to see Mary Ann's recent behavior because she is clearly thinking for herself, even if it means going against her party. We need individuals who don't care about parties, but care about the specific issues and how decisions will impact the entire town. Not how it will impact the democrats or republicans. It's "hogwash" - love that term, thanks unethical Ethics Chairman of East Greenbush - Eddie no-good Gilbert.
DeleteYou're right Jim_C- I've been following in the Times-Union the shenanigans that are happening at the County level. It seems as if it's pretty common place for the party insiders to try to game the system for their own benefit as much as they can. Unfortunately, it's no different in East Greenbush.
DeleteIs that the same Ed Gilbert who was listed as the Vice-Chairman of the Rensselaer County Conservative Party?
DeleteJim C is 100% correct, but that's why they call it "politics" and why free and independent thinkers don't tend to survive; they either walk away or eventually get shoved out by the party that originally endorsed them. When MA offered to run, they knew nothing about her. In fact, they didn't even take the time to meet with her prior to her campaign to tell her what would be expected of her if she won. They jumped at her candidacy for one reason, because her last name is Matters. After election, the marching orders started coming. Initially, she was uncomfortable with it, to say the least, but she mostly walked the party line. It wasn't until she was given the 'play ball or else' ultimatum by Elroy and then, of course, punished for her move to independence with the flog-blog customized just for her, that she walked away. Needless to say, she won't be endorsed again to run for anything because she's too independent and outspoken. This is the pain and peril of politics. Others can see what MA has been through and would naturally shrink away from it. I mean, who wants to have a flog-blog dedicated to trashing their name and the names of their family members and friends? No one. And Elroy and his cohorts are so good at flogging, it's their specialty. It takes a high pain tolerance to walk alone politically-speaking. Not everyone can do it.
ReplyDeleteHave to wonder how the new DA will handle Martin Reid:
ReplyDeleteMartin T. Reid's benefits scrutinized in Rensselaer Co.
Legislature chairman's collection of unemployment referred to county DA
By Brendan J. Lyons
Published 11:47 pm, Sunday, January 18, 2015
http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Martin-T-Reid-s-benefits-scrutinized-in-6024541.php
You a partially right. MAM is to be admired for her independent atands. Your political analysis is flawed in that her public independence will make her more powerful than the cowardly republicans now in the party positions. Ms Matters will be able to work with some other free thinking individuals after the next election and she has the potential to be calling the shots in the republican town party if sbe plays her cards right. The sophmoric behavior of those who are rridiculing her is apparent and she can stay strong above them. John McCain comes to mind as a national republican figure who is always independent, well respected and untouchable.
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding CP DiMartino's vote to "table" the ethics resolution my question is why did she not have her concerns regarding confidentiality clarified at the pre-board meeting? Jack & Tom, please do not assume this question is an "attack" on CP DiMartino. It is a question. Also, why have pre-board meetings if the questions/concerns/confusions are not hashed out at that time?
ReplyDelete1:05 p.m. Your question is 100% valid. The pre-board meeting comes a week ahead of the board meeting exactly for the purpose of giving board members time to ask questions and get answers. The fact that she waited until the board meeting to express her confusion is suspect especially since Langley and Mangold jumped on the opportunity to "table" the resolution for her (yeah, right). Had they not wanted it tabled, discussion would have ensued and CP DiMartino's confusion would have been cleared up pronto. It's all over town hall that Langley had a tantrum just prior to the last board meeting. Some surmise that CP DiMartino wanted to support the ethics reso against his wishes. Someone in a prior post said "he yelled at her like an irate parent." It was then that she became "confused," and the reso was tabled. He is an unprofessional, unconscionable bully and perhaps CP DiMartino is afraid to oppose him. It's troubling to think that this might be the case.
ReplyDeleteIts simple they all have to be voted out. Everyone that wants these people out you have to start now with the planning to get it done.Dont waste time trying to reason with them ,they do not understand the process or care to understand.
ReplyDelete6:35 p.m. Sadly, there's nothing simple about politics in EG. The scroungers, takers, and deal-makers everywhere gravitate towards elected office like flies to a picnic. The honest ones don't last. Changing an entire system of corruption and greed is like trying to pull yourself out of quicksand; the more you struggle and fight to conquer it, the faster you sink. The EG town board needs three good govt people of a like mind to make a difference, which is practically unheard of. Can it be done? Well, all I can say is this...how much luck has anyone ever had keeping flies away from a picnic? They always find a way in.
ReplyDeleteI'll go along with good government Board Members, but I might prefer five open minds over three like minds
DeletePete Stenson
Pete, perhaps I am misinterpreting your statement. Good government is a way of doing things; a set of practices followed by public officers to promote the public good. Good government practices promote differences among men and women of good will. Wherever you have good government you will have independent thinking. NO need to choose one over the other.
ReplyDeleteI've no argument against good government ...
DeleteMy thrust was that five open minds trumps three like minds.
Open minds will research and/or listen to all sides of an issue before making a decision.
Pete Stenson
Please plan to attend the town board meeting tonite, 7 p.m., town hall, to speak in favor of a public hearing on the subject of allowing residents to file complaints with the Ethics Board. The Supervisor has made it crystal clear that he is NOT in favor of amending the town code of ethics so that residents can file ethics complaints. He believes that scores of angry residents will file false complaints against him and that this will hinder his chances for re-election. His belief that there are scores of people in the town who would DO such a thing, is both disturbing and insulting. Therefore, please come tonite and tell him that you are in favor of the public hearing or just come to listen but please COME. There IS strength in numbers.
ReplyDeleteApparently Joel Abelove is getting his managerial advice from the brain trust in EG because he's already doing stupid things. Someone should tell Joel that he IS the DA and he should act like it. If Rich Crist or Martin Reid did something stupid shame on them, but he shouldn't cover for either of them. There is clearly a conflict Joel. Refer it to someone else and get it off your plate before this comes back to bite you in your next election. Yours is a difficult seat to win and there will be plenty of democrats fighting for it. Plus if you think they have any interest in keeping this out of the press, you're wrong. Stay above board or you'll quickly become the former DA of Rensselaer County… not much pay in that.
ReplyDeleteThe draft 12/31/14 EG Operating Statement is available at
ReplyDeletehttp://eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/43-comptroller
Pete Stenson
Kudos to EG Republican Chris Defruscio for proving to EG how unprofessional and immature you really are, and at a town board meeting for us all to see. Another emvarrassing representative for n our town How manly it was of hin to attack Mary Ann Matters, who correct me of I'm wrong he does not work for. Liaison does not mean boss. If there was ever any doubt he has his hands on the school boy blog with Gilbert, that doubt was cleared up tonight.
ReplyDeleteJust remember this : Karma has everyone's address. Sooner or later....
DeleteI want to know how Keith feels this morning. He needed to admonish both of his male pals last night for their childish behavior during last night's board meeting.He had to stop the meeting because of Chris DeFruscio being out of order on at least 3 occasions.
ReplyDeleteChris should go up the chain of command (chief clerk, judge) with his job complaints. problem here is that the Supervisor is filling the "employee's" head with private information that should be kept amoung board members. This is one of the many reasons that the Republican Chair should NOT be a court employee. The chief reason is, of course, is that Chris standing there gives the impression that he and or the Republican Party influences court proceedings.
ReplyDelete"Supervisor Keith Langley even argued that allowing the public to file ethics complaints could hurt his re-election bid this year"
ReplyDeleteDoes he REALLY think he has a chance of re-election? I would vote for Donald Duck before I voted for him again. He lost our votes.
Dear Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteWhat in heaven's name was Chris DeFruscio thinking when he seated himself in the front row at last night's Town Board Meeting and proceeded to shout at, talk over and heckle a series of speakers during the public comment period? It got so bad that Supervisor Langley was forced to repeatedly ask Mr. DeFruscio to restrain himself.
And what was Chris DeFruscio thinking when he attempted to bully CP Mary Ann Matters by proclaiming loudly at least three times from the public comment podium: "You gotta problem with me?" "You gotta problem with me?" "You gotta problem with me?" That inappropriate outburst by Mr. DeFruscio also required Supervisor Langley's intervention to restore a semblance of decorum and order to the proceedings.
Is this what passes for enlightened public discourse from a Town of East Greenbush Court Attendant and member of Supervisor Langley's inner circle?
Be well,
Tom
By now Chris should know THE WHOLE TOWN has a problem with him and his behavior is one of the reasons for it. He is a P.I.G.--poor, ignorant goof.
ReplyDeleteI sat in the row behind Chris DeFruscio last night and watched the whole embarrassing show. I knew something was up becuz he usually sits in the back row with the rest of Langley's losers. As soon as Langley started the comment period, DeF was up like a shot to be the first one to the podium. He was gunning big-time for MAM. With contempt for her in his tone, he started berating her for not returning his phone calls. Then he said "If you gotta problem with me, you call me, you speak to me." It made me wonder who does this guy think he is? She just glared back at him but, to her credit, she held her tongue. After he sat down, DeF focused his wrath on Rick Matters who was sitting off to the side. If the Matters so much as looked at each other, DeF called over to Rick, "Are you on the board?" He kept glaring at Rick to see if he was signaling to MA. It was truly a clown show last night between DeF and Elroy. They wreak of desperation as they try to hold it together without MA. DeF is furious with her bcuz she wants him out of the court job. He unleashed his wrath on her last night. Meanwhile, Langley sat absolutely silent while Dave VanWormer trashed his DPW crew. Would it have killed Langley to defend his own DPW guys? Debbi tried to defend them but Langley hushed her up. Langley will take on Jack Conway and argue with him about ethics but DVW gets the silent treatment? Go figure. DeF and Gilbert made utter fools of themselves last night and they have to go. DeF's behavior towards MAM was workplace harassment and she should file a complaint with the town and the police.
ReplyDeleteWe spent more than two years trying to get a Code of Ethics that included financial disclosure requirements and it wasn't until the 2013 election loomed that our elected officials decided to do the right thing. Obviously they were worried about the way it was being used as a campaign issue. A number of things happened at last night's Town Board meeting to signal that this year's campaign has begun. One was the 5-0 votes on four good government resolutions. Clearly, anyone with good ideas about how to improve things should come forward now while we have their attention and let's see what else we can squeeze out of them during the brief time when they actually listen to residents.
ReplyDeleteFans of political theater (or soap operas) were treated to a real show last night. In particular the two previous DPW commissioners lit up the room with emotional accusations against town officials. Chris' attack on Mary Ann Matters was clearly personal and lacked substance while Dave's attack on the current DPW regime was also personal but contained substance. I wish Anthony Corellis has been at the meeting to present his side of the story. On the one hand, Dave Van Wormer has a vested interest in seeing DPW decline while on the other he does know what he's talking about. Perhaps the most curious thing of all was the consistent and even-handed civility of the Town Supervisor. He reined in Chris and Ed Gilbert and let Dave speak his piece. Maybe he's concerned about re-election but whatever his motivation, it was his most effective performance as moderator. I hope he continues to use that approach.
One thing's for sure: the silly season is upon us. The good news is that good things might actually get done. The bad news is that the curtain has been raised on the blood spectacle that is local politics in our little town.
Chris complaining that someone didn't call him back?! What a joke! In his past, he rarely returned calls. Maybe he has learned a lesson and returns calls now but up until a year ago he was notorious for not returning calls, even if it pertained to his business. What a buffoon.
ReplyDeleteChris should not be allowed to harass anyone and if he has to be asked more than twice to settle down and not hound or bully people he should be asked to leave the meeting. The public should not have to tolerate such behavior. It makes many in the room uncomfortable and quite frankly, that behavior is unpredictable. Interrupting and haranguing people, whether they are Board members or private citizens, such as Rick Matters or anyone from the public, should not be allowed. PERIOD!
There is no hiding the fact that SWF is and has been a complete fraud from the beginning ! Its nothing but a money grab for the Defruscio friends and family. If you can't see that , your clearly looking at this entire mess thru rose colored glasses !
Delete9:20 a.m. If what you say is true, Matters and DiMartino were NOT part of the ruse. They entered politics with the best intentions for the town. They believed in the Smart Way Forward slogan. They truly expected to work with Keith Langley to "fix the town." Unfortunately, they found out on day 1 of their terms that HE didn't want to work WITH them; he wanted them to work FOR him. They both found out immediately on day 1 that he expected to be Commander Langley. They spent all this time and money to get elected only to find out that they were being taken for fools who couldn't stand on their two feet. But what a difference a year makes. Come to the board meetings and see for yourself.
DeleteI don't understand why Chris Defruscio's behavior doesn't automatically disqualify him from serving as a Court Attendant. Doesn't or shouldn't the Town Justices frown on this type of ill mannered public behavior. Aren't Court employes supposed to be held to a higher standard?
Delete1/23 @ 9:20 a.m. If you think it was any different when the Democrats were in control, then you're fooling yourself. Both Dems and Repubs alike do the "money grab" thing the same way. What we need is another choice. Why does it always have to be between Dems/Repubs then Repubs/Dems? Why not an Independence or Conservative Party choice, too? We NEED to widen the field of competition.
DeleteMr. Conway- I respectfully beg to differ. That was no even-handed civility practiced by the Supervisor. It was simply his frightening combination of flop sweat and shell shock. The Supervisor has a three plus year history of throwing his employees and political associates under the bus when he feels it suits him to do so. It seems he finally realized late last night that his disloyal behavior to his former supporters has caught up to him.
ReplyDeleteChris defruscio and Ed Gilbert have made a three ring circus out of Town Board meetings. Those two , along with Johnny Tirino should be banned from all Town gatherings !
ReplyDeleteThey are a joke and now effectively they are collectively the laughing stock of Town Politics !
Guess the bus broke down- huh ?
4:00 This may well be true but the nastiness is getting out of control. Just who does DeF think he is scolding a board member like he did and sitting in the front row harassing her like a schoolyard punk? He should have been ejected from the meeting until he got himself under control. Even Ed Gilbert behaved better than DeF that night. As Chairman of the Republican Committee, his behavior was positively undignified.
ReplyDelete@ 12:36 PM- Agreed. Don't forget. DeF is also Langley's choice to be the EG Town Court Attendant. His behavior must not bother Langley.
DeleteIt has been reported that Supervisor Langley's most recent Secretary has submitted her resignation. Doesn't surprise me in the least. Langley has learned absolutely nothing about how to treat his staff. Has he completed the required employee relations course?
ReplyDeleteAt the town board meeting Wednesday night, former DPW Commish Dave VanWormer very angrily addressed the board about all the ways that HE believes the current DPW Commish, Anthony Corellis, is dropping the ball on the job. As he spoke, you couldn't help but think that Mr. VW is still mightily angry and bitter about his status as a former DPW Commish who is now making a living in the town in a dramatically different way. It would have been far more impressive if Mr. VW chose to discuss his complaints with Commr. Corellis man-to-man and in private but it would have been even more impressive if Supr. Langley defended Commr. Corellis and his operation instead sitting there so quietly and compliantly taking a verbal beating from Mr. VW. As a result of Supr. Langley's silence on the matter, his Secretary Denise Corellis resigned her post and walked away. The Supervisor should always defend his people and not allow others to denigrate them publicly. While the Supervisor has been known to argue on occasion, we are left to wonder why he never opened his mouth that night to defend who many consider to be the only man in town who was capable of cleaning up the mess Mr. VW left and getting the DPW in ship shape. Thank you, Commr. Corellis, for doing a great job. We will miss seeing Denise in the office every day.
ReplyDeleteBecause the DPW Commissioner position is filled by appointment of the political majority in power and because it is one of the highest paying town jobs it has always been and it will always be filled by pure political hacks. Partak, Defrucsio, Van Wormer and Corellis were NOT put in the DPW job because of they expertise.
DeleteAppointments is just another area where voters have seen absolute proof that one political party is every bit as bad as the other.
Here's to hoping for an independent takeover come November. The hacks of both parties need to go. Dedicated, caring people need to be hired - and it is completely possible.
Yes, it is completely possible. We should get behind folks with real experience in administration,personnel, finances and running and managing a work force. I plan to keep my eye out for anyone other than the same old, same old politicians who see these jobs as their career occupations.
DeleteSupr. Langley excels at alienating people. From board members to dept heads to residents, he's an equal opportunity offender. He is simply not cut out for politics and I hope this is his last year in office and that he moves on to a job where he doesn't have to work with people. A desk job in a basement somewhere would be perfect for him. NO LANGLEY 2015!
ReplyDeleteLangley is an odd duck. With some people, mostly men, he sits like a statue when they're engaging him but with other people, mostly women, he goes all ninja turtle on them rather than accommodate them even a little bit. This has cost him his majority on the town board. At the board meeting last Wednesday night, Chris DeFruscio berated CP Matters for not returning his calls. They just don't get it that they blew it with her, it's over, she's moved on, she's GONE! How in heaven's name could they possibly expect anything else from her under the circumstances? The bizzare behavior of the dynamic trio (Langley, DeFruscio, Gilbert) since Jan 1 of last year has done nothing but DESTROY the SWF. It truly is as if they WANTED it to fail. They will get their wish on Nov 3rd but, in the meantime, we have a whole year to get through. It promises to be an exciting year for local government, folks. Stay tuned!
ReplyDeleteChris DeFruscio should seriously consider resigning from his position as Court Attendant due to his highly inappropriate public behavior. His continued presence in the Courtroom reflects badly on all participants in the Town's Judicial process.
ReplyDelete2:26 p.m. The Supr. obviously has him positioned in there for a reason and that reason is, of course, highly political. He sees who shows up in court for whatever reason, he helps to mitigate their circumstances, then he plans to show up on their doorstep later with a nominating petition and say 'sign here.' There is no other reason why the Chairman of the Republican Committee in our town would need to be in the court. It's highly inappropriate and improper and CP Matters is working to get him removed. For this reason, he is angry at her, which explains his behavior towards her on board night. DeF is every bit the bully that Langley and Gilbert are. The three of them think that they can strong arm people into doing whatever they want but Matters has pushed back from the start. Their form and method of government can't sustain itself in a true Democracy; it can't sustain itself in America.
DeleteThere is also a very real possibility that a person coming before the court would assume that Chris, the Republican Town Chairperson, has influence over court decisions. We may well have lawyers and people accused of crimes contributing to republicans and playing ball with republicans because it appears that Chairfperson Chris is on the Judicial team. He must be removed. The two judges loose votes every day they let Chris stand there. They have a responsibility to take care of this situation.
DeleteJudge Engel and Judge Donnelly have a responsibility to fix the DeFruscio situation because we, the residents, are prohibited by these bullies from filing an Ethics complaint. It is obvious that Chris DeFruscio can't or won't be held to the higher standard necessary for work in the courts. They must remove him as soon as possible.
ReplyDeleteWhile the judges remove him because Langley, who created the mess, is too much of a coward to do so, they may want to tell TB Council Gruenburg that it's not nice to ignore the Attorney General on the matter of Ethics. Citizens are demanding a complaint mechanism!
DiMartino is equally to blame as DeFruscio. She is really much worse and more dangerous because she votes. Think about that. Chris doesn't have a vote but DiMartino does.
ReplyDelete11:56 a.m. Since the town board appointed DeF to the court, it is their responsibility to remove him from the court. Langley is in a pickle for being foolish enough to put DeF in there in the first place because he obviously needs DeF to help him get re-elected. After all, DeF is the Chairman of the Republican Committee. Langley is learning now that he should never have put DeF in the court but he did and now he's stuck unless other board members take the bull by the horns and handle DeF's ouster without Langley's support. This can and will be done.
ReplyDeleteLangley messed up a lot of things that other people will need to fix. In the case of DeFruscio's appointment to the court, Langley hasn't acted and the Judges have a responsibility to uphold.
DeleteGoing to be interesting to see how the machines on both sides try to finesse the 1 Cooper Av construction with a sewer connection during the moratorium and no building permit and assorted ancillary documents and permits. This one looks like a big fix for the connected, and Judy Condo has already done her part on the whitewash from the 'Dems with her report to the Planning Board. Just can't make this stuff up. This one is a perfect snapshot of how the fix has worked in this Town for ages.
ReplyDeleteSword, if this was done during the moratorium, then there wouldn't be a sewer permit. Without a sewer permit, there couldn't be a legitimate hookup. So who hooked 1 Cooper Ave up in the absence of a legitimate work permit? Maybe a neighbor watched it happen and remembers who did it. Also, is Langley covering-up for a bunch of stonecold Democrats who were conspiring to work without proper work permits and town authorizations? This apparently happened on his watch, right under his nose. Now that it's exposed, does Langley, and members of the Zoning and Planning Boards, plan to address it openly and make examples of the violators? And just exactly WHO was minding the store at Town Hall while all this major outside work was happening in broad daylight? So many questions! Langley knows who attended somebody's house party on a Saturday night but he doesn't know about major construction being done on Cooper Ave by a Hart? Highly doubtful.
ReplyDeleteyou may remember thatas work progressed on fixing leaks, lining the sewer pipes and the wwtp, NYS allowed hook-ups in bits and pieces
ReplyDeleteI have it on good authority that the NYS DEC knew nothing about this one.
Delete1:20 p.m. What does that mean? Was there a moratorium on sewer hook-ups or not? And what do the "bits and pieces" have to do with 1 Cooper Ave. OR is it more about the who than the what and the where? And, if DEC was involved, how come there's no permit to validate it? Did Langley know anything about it? Answer what you can.
ReplyDeleteToo many people like to play the "I know what you don't know" game, it's a lot of fun right?!
DeleteA court attendants role is to maintain order and ensure safety in the court. Our 6 foot plus, arrogant Republican ChairMAN verbally attacked and harassed a public official in public, and this is the man who is supposed to bring order and ensure safety in our court?
Less than 6 months ago his friend Tirino verbally attacked a teenage girl. Can any of these despicable boys at least pick fights with their own sex, size and age? In both of these cases these men were able to continue to make comments and sit there while the chief of police and supervisor allowed them to remain in the room.
Welcome to East Greenbush. Still waiting for the unicorns to come down in the hot air balloons. On a different note, does Gilbert seem a little upset that there's no casino? Oh, the three ring circuis - the fact Gilbert remains as our Ethics Chairman is the icing on the cake. The sad part is he won't resign and we can't do anything until his term is up.