Thirty two citizens carried petitions for the East Greenbush First slate, almost as many as the 39 Democratic Party Caucus electors who nominated the Dem slate. It's not an official count yet, but the Gadfly did hear that in the neighborhood of 450 registered Dems signed the EG1st petitions.
Congratulations to Jack Conway, Tina Tierney and Tom Grant and their ever-growing coalition on a fantastic job. Now let's get busy on getting out the vote.
Here's Bob Gardinier's TU story:
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/East-Greenbush-First-candidates-to-submit-6437621.php
Here's a pic of some of the 32 petition carriers:
Not to be a party pooper but it's a lot harder getting people to the polls than getting them to sign a petition that's presented to them at their door. They have not yet begun to fight.
ReplyDeleteJACK, TINA, TOM 2015!
I have absolutely no doubt that in the next two and a half months, as the Platform is rolled out and as history is explored, some rather serious motivation to get out and vote will be developed and expanded. This is the first ever real alternative to politics as usual that our Town has ever seen. And it will be successful.
DeleteNew broom sweeps clean!!
Anony 3:10 - when you hear the other candidates numbers you will see that while yes it is harder to get people to the polls, the amount of support is unprecedented! The EG1st collected more signatures than the other 3 Supervisors and 4 Town Board members running (I believe almost double)!
DeleteThe threat of a casino in EG is still fresh in my mind. In Schenectady, they're breaking ground and getting ready to build. I feel sorry for Schenectadians but so relieved for us. I still remember the stonecold stares of the board members as they endured our pleas for mercy like one endures a visit to the dentist. Now it's time for Mr. Langley to endure our blank stares as he begs for his job. What goes around truly does come around. Ain't life grand!
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget that there were a bunch of Dem insiders and "investors" who partnered with Langley and some Rep/Cons operatives in the conspiracy to bring a casino to EG. Their activities were far from transparent and responsive to the community. The way they operate is toxic to good government.
DeleteTake a look at the statement from the candidates on the submission of the petitions at the bottom of this page. (The pics are great too.)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.eg1st.org/petition_signatures
Newsflash for Donnie Boy:
ReplyDeleteThose sigantures are not votes. Many, many people will sign anything to get you off their doorstep. You had a very large pool to choose from, with blanks and Dem's available to you, while they weren't for anyone else. Just sayin'
Here begins the fully expected sour grape crowd. They don't "get it" and never will. Been in the saddle or driving the bus for so long they think they're entitled. Bye bye.....
DeleteIt's the same childish, disillusioned arguments we heard for the casino. The thoudands of people and hundreds who showed up to meeting after meeting didn't matter either, but instead there was a "silent majority." Hey anony 4:48 still waiting to see that silent majority. The entire state saw the actual majority. If it was that easy how come Langlley and Republicans couldn't get a quarter of the signatures EG1st received (with welcomed arms)? How come Dave and the Democrats couldn't? Langley may have seen the same amount, just they were rejections instead of supportive signatures. The facts are starting right at you, but instead you choose to drink the koolaid. Well stock up, you're going to need a lot of it on November 3rd.
DeleteDear 4:48: the same exact pool of voters is available to any candidate who wants to run and has the energy and will to run as an independent candidate. The established parties have lower numbers and are restricted to seeking support from their own members for their candidates.
DeleteI understand that you are very disappointed but but if you must fuss and complain about the eg1st success, get it right.
No one was in a hurry to get me off their doorstep, NO ONE! My petitions took a long time, because people WANTED TO TALK. I got signatures from all parties except Working Family. People wanted information about the EG First Candidates. People were friendly and had concerns about our town government, past and present. Gadfly, I was very troubled after I talked to a couple. They didn't sign my petition because they were AFRAID someone would see their names. The gentleman is an ex-town employee. How sad is that? Be assured that my signatures represent full support for the EG First Candidates in November.
DeleteWait a minute GF. I feel sorry for Anonymous 4:48. He must be a pretty sad and pathetic individual to carry this much hatred.
ReplyDeleteHe should get a puppy or something. Well, maybe not. That wouldn't be good for the puppy. Maybe anger management counseling is a better idea.
(Just a parenthesis) 400,300 hits on the Gadfly blog since March of 2012.
ReplyDeleteholy cow! We all owe you a debt of gratitude for the service you provide.
DeleteThank you, Gadfly. This blog has been a great tool to share information and allow feedback. It's a sad thing that you had to endure the threats of secretive bullies here. The Good Book says, you will reap what you sow. Hopefully some will take heed and find the wisdom in those words. You are still the smartest guy I know.
DeleteGadfly
DeleteThere have been times that you haven't published my replies, mainly because I do not trust Matters and DiMartino, but maybe you will publish this reply as I am quite surprised that no one has commented on the fact that Featherstonhaugh's law firm contributed to Langley's campaign(please correct me if I am mistaken thanks)--so even though I don't always agree with you--
we did have one thing in common--the concern over the casino.
I still don't get why anyone after all that happened then and now would put their faith in the 2 women who will still be on the town board after this election. All the more reason to vote for Jack Conway!
@ 8:38 PM- Speaking of campaign contributions. I find it curious that Rick Matters, husband of CP Mary Ann Matters, has so far contributed $600 in this year's campaign. $100 to the Friends of Michael C. Poorman for Supervisor and $500 to the Friends of East Greenbush First.
DeleteNow that the cross-endorsement dream is nothing but a dissipated puff of smoke, Casino Keith is doubling back to previously forgotten old time republicans and being turned away at their doors, which is perfect for a turncoat like him. Had EG been awarded that casino, there would have been no stopping the abundance of me-first jackals in this town who would be lining up to profit from it. For a while there, 'ol Keith viewed himself as a kind of boss hog, utterly invincible, and he was wallowing in it. His pit crew is now rolling out the male versions of MA and DD and looking to try the same failed experiment all over again. Egad, they're dumb. EG1st is running mature adults who have more than 15 minutes of experience under their belts. EG1st candidates have jobs and children and even grandchildren and a wealth of knowledge and experience to offer the town. EG1st candidates want REAL change, not just empty promises. VOTE EG1st!
ReplyDeleteJACK, TINA, TOM 2015
Bad news for the County Republicans in todays TU. These are the guys who are backing Langley/Defruscio/Fiacco all the time
ReplyDeleteNIce that the good news for EG1st is in the same paper.
I feel like I'm reading about our Town's politician's in this article (http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Rensselaer-County-Legislature-chairman-Martin-T-6438953.php). Sad he's still the Republican Chairman - it's an overall sad state in our Town and in Rensselaer County. It makes more sense now however that they can support Langley for reelection. On a side note, never knew you could make $400 a week and still collect unemployment!
DeleteUPDATE - he has been taking into court in handcuffs: http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Handcuffed-Legislature-Chair-Martin-Reid-arrives-6439641.php
DeleteConservative chairman arrested last month, Republican Cahirman arrested this month. That's a fine group you have backing you Keith. How can anyone vote for that bunch?
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing that the McCabe/VanWormer team is in somewhat of a stew today too.
ReplyDeleteReid is in trouble. But wasn't taking illegal longevity and sick-leave payments just as bad? Talk about "fix." Why hasn't the Town Board acted on the finding of the State Comptroller?
ReplyDeleteHere you have it boys and girls....unaudited AUD's don't cut the mustard.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Places-4-Local-Government-Obligors-On-Review-Direction-Uncertain--PR_332380
Time for the Attorney General to get his nose in here and kick some ass. We have a collection of incompetents on both sides of the political isle and they need to be taken to the woodshed.
DeleteSorry Keith, there is just no excuse for this. You had every chance to set things right, but you chose DeFruscio and his bus.
DeleteSo the ads in the Advertiser are BS
DeleteCan anybody tell us why they don't understand when we speak to them in the English language? Why can't they manage government in a rational manner?
ReplyDeleteTo quote Langley's silent majority, Meaghan Hart stated that Langley “continues to work to place the town on a better fiscal foundation,” and Gilbert claims that Langley uses “careful, common sense management." Ummmm.....And, let's not forget our current comptroller who stated our accounting system was "broken beyond repair." This was when he was appointed in 2014, not prior to Langley taking the Supervisor role (and failing) as he'd like us to think. Langley, you failed, you deserve to lose in November.
ReplyDeleteIs Dave VanWormer the solution? He was disciplined several times while serving as a police officer for Rensselaer before being terminated. Some of his actions he was disciplined for included: sleeping on the job, marking off sick time to go play golf and talking about confidential police matters at city council meetings. His former boss, Chief Fusco stated "he has total disregard for authority." Is this really the man we want running our town? I think he's better suited to run his hot dog stand. Oh, and he tried suing the city for his lawful termination and was denied. He tried appealing, and was denied again.
Then we have Poorman who has already served our town and did nothing, we still remain the sad, mismanaged town now as we were then. Let's not forget it's Poorman's brother in law who is allowed to drive school buses while serving as our Police Chief. Who's our Police Chief while he's out driving buses? Does he carry his gun while driving?
The only solution is EG1st, make your neighbors aware and get them to vote!
849. I prefer to focus on what the candidates are planning for the future of our Town. That's why I'm supporting Jack, Tina and Tom. The policies of the past have failed.
ReplyDeleteI give Dave and Poorman credit for putting themselves out there for consideration by the voters.
But, bottom line, a vote for Jack, Tina and Tom is warranted on Election Day.
True, but it is important to note the reasons why they are unqualified for the position. These aren't personal attacks, I personally like Dave. As my town's Supervisor, I'm scared and these attributes are key as to why the other candidates are unfit. Jack, Tina and Tom have the most detailed campaign and have provided more information about themselves and what they stand for than any other candidate, current or past. AND, they still have more to come. So they say. Sadly, too many people will pull the lever (hypothetically) to remain loyal to a party that stands for nothing. They need to know what those people stand for.
DeleteFor me, the expression "we've tried the rest, now let's try the best," comes to mind. How could anyone even think of making a DVW supervisor of a town, any town, big or small? Just Google his name and see what comes up. If this man is elected, it will be the wolves guarding the hen house all over again. Research, research, research your candidates backgrounds. If you were buying a car, you would research the heck out of your purchase. Why not do the same for someone who wants to run your town? Keith Langley has been in office since 2012. The town is still sputtering along, despite his Advertiser ads with his wife and kids by his side. While touching, we are singing the Moody's blues again where the investment service describes EG's financial future as "uncertain." I'm sorry but that does not give me a warm fuzzy. Mike Poorman hasn't been part of the political landscape since the 90s but that's all I know about him, not a smidge more. So, where do we to go from here? Do we want better or worse, sickness or health until the next election cycle rolls by four looong years from now? I want better. I want economic health and prosperity I CAN DEPEND ON. I want Jack, Tina, and Tom to take the wheel and be the newly designated drivers who take responsibility to get us home safely from the dance. Sound good?
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying because a was fired from a position 15 yeras ago, he is not qualified. That's interesting, you don't consider the 15 years of service before that last tumuluous year, in which several more officers were run out of town in retaliation for standing up for what was right and denouncing corruption? How about the 15 years since the firing, in which Dave has been a successful businessman, excellent employee and dedicated community volunteer? That doesn't count? How about this: you have a very strong supporter that was fired from her town job. Does that make her unqualified for anything, even though she is a smart lady and can make a good contribution? No it doesn't mean that. It means she and her boss had disagreements and he got rid of her. The point is, there are 2 sides to every story, we don't know all of the facts.
ReplyDeleteHim being terminated isn't the cause for concern, the reasons for his termination is what's cause for concern. It speaks to his character. As someone who read the lawsuit and appeals (I am not anony 8:49, but I agree), the facts were clearly stated (the same as what 8:49 listed) and investigated and found to be true. At least the District Court thought so, enough that they denied DVM multiple times.
DeleteSome people have told me to just ignore these comments, but i would like to set the record straight, so you know the truth and can make an informed decision. I will not get into a back and forth on this, here it is in a nutshell.
ReplyDeleteIn 2001, I was indeed fired from the Rensselaer Police Dept after a 15 year career, 14 of those years being fantastic, 1 not so good. I made Sergeant after 7 years, which was very quick and then was no.1 on the Deputy Chief list after the exam.
After a tragedy occurred within the dept.,which involved the passing of my best friend, things began to unravel, with blame and finger pointing. I and the other veteran officers began to question the leadership of the dept. We had a vote of no confidence in the leadership and then the fun started. I was charged with sleeping on duty, which I readily admitted to. I closed my eyes for a short time at 6am at the end of a 16hr.shift. It happens. Guilty as charged. A few months later, I was sick and called in for the midnight shift. I woke up in the morning feeling better, so I played golf, teeing off at 9am, 1 hour after my tour would have ended. I was charged with that. The thing that got me fired was speaking at the Common Council meeting about an "on going investigation". The truth is, I spoke about corruption in the Dept, particularly, the assault of a handcuffed prisoner, by one of our officers, a friend of the boss. This assault was brought to the boss and DA months earlier, with nothing being done. I then decided to bring it up in a public forum, at the monthly common council meeting, so EVERYONE knew about it. Only after this meeting, was this office indicted and convicted of the assault, while I was fired for speaking in public about it, as it was an "on going investigation". when in reality, there was no investigation, it was being swept under the rug until I spoke. I lost in arbitration, and was fired. because I in fact, did speak about that incident in public. Also, there were approximately 10 other guys who were charged and disciplined after the no confidence vote, with may leaving and going to other departments before their cases were decided. I decided to stick it out, because i thought the truth would prevail. I had offers to go to a few other departments, but declined. Turned out to be a bad decision, but I know I did the right thing.
So there you have it. I have never tried to hide my police history, as I am actually very proud of it. In my 15 years, I helped many people and took many bad guys off the street. the 14 years before that 1 tumultuous year were great and the last 15 years have been pretty good too. I did a good job for 10 years for the Town of East Greenbush and have done well in business. If you think that I cannot do the job of Town supervisor because of that issue 15 years ago, well that's your opinion I guess. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first Stone". Have a nice weekend.
That's a very funny story. You just made a compelling argument as to why you shouldn't be the town supervisor. Thank you
DeleteI hoped Dave wouldn't feel the need to explain this but I respect his decision to do so. The bottom line on all of this is that Dave Van Wormer is a good man. End of story. The campaign should be about issues. We each need to present a coherent diagnosis of the mess we're in and specific proposals to get us out of it. What matters in our personal histories are the experiences that prepared us to achieve the solutions we propose. Dave is an honest and honorable person. I'm proud to run against him.
ReplyDeleteDear Gadfly:
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with Jack Conway. Anonymous personal attacks have no place in this, or any other, campaign. While Dave VanWormer and I haven't agreed on every Town issue over the last few years, I have always found him to be an honorable man, always willing to engage in thoughtful and civil discussion.
The Town of East Greenbush is facing some very difficult decisions, most recently evidenced by the August 12th, MOODY'S Rating Action.
We all need to begin working together to move East Greenbush forward in a positive and public manner and to stop engaging in anonymous, unwarranted and negative attacks.
My thanks to Dave, Jack and all the other candidates for their willingness to participate in the electoral process.
Let's make this a political campaign that all of the people of East Greenbush can be proud of.
Be well,
Tom
Tom, Jack, Dave and Pete, This is the sad sad state of blogs anyone can put anything and not have to sign their name to it. I feel if you have info to share about someone put your name to it. I know these types of authored posts first hand because people have had stuff about me. People need to grow up
DeleteNotice my name at the bottom
Classy responses by Jack Conway and Tom Grant. I'm proud to know them.
ReplyDeleteJack and Tom said it all - good men, both of them.
ReplyDeleteI'm proud and honored to be on the ticket with Dave and facing such honorable candidates as Jack and Tom.
There are enough issues facing East Greenbush without adding mud-slinging to the mix.
Pete Stenson
Jack & Tom;
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind words, I always treated everyone the same, no matter which side of the isle. As I said at the caucus, Jack is a gentleman and we have spoken about keeping this campaign about the issues. Tom, as you can see by his post above, is also a gentleman, and Tina found her way to the doghouse to introduce herself, a little while back, whiich I thought, was a fine gesture. I believe everyone in both of our camps, is looking out for the best interest of the Taxpayers, something I'm not sure is a priority right now. Of course, I hope Myself, Pete and Andrea, win this thing, but i think Jack, Tina and Tom are out for what's best for everyone, just like we are. Good luck!
My question to Dave VanWormer is, do you support Councilperson Matters resolution to recoup the Stipend, Longevity and sick pay money that was inappropriately paid out to various town employees and identified by the state comptroller's office. Dave, you want to portray yourself as a man of character, then respond here and now with an answer, in order for the residents of this town to be able to consider you for the man you claim you are.
DeleteIt's absolutely foolish to get into a back and forth on a blog, about issues, but I will answer this one thing. I didn't see the resolution, but what I've heard is that the reso targets only 2 people. As everyone knows, the practice went on for many years, with many people getting extra pay. I believe it would be an absolute disgrace to go after only 2 of the many people who recieved the extra pay, and it would probably be a violation of their civil rights, putting the town on the hook for more money. It's akin to selective prosecution, in my opinion. Then there is the issue of the parties defense. Having been involved in the legal system and dealt with this issue every day for 15 years, I know that the employer indemnifies an employee for anything that happens during the course of their duties. This means that the town would have to pay the legal fees of every person involved, which would be astronomical. I know this is not what you want to hear, but it is fact. I do not believe it would be fair or legal to pick and choose who to go after. We either go after everyone or noone. I also don't believe it would be fiscally prudent to spend an amount of money that would be more than could be recouped, which I'm pretty sure would be the case. This town has wasted enough money over the years. If there was an analysis done, with all of the facts, including recouping from every person who recieved money improperly, and that analyisis proved that it would be beneficial tow the town, I would move forward. As it stands right now, I would not support the resolution.
ReplyDeleteDave....the resolution does not target two people, it addresses those who got stipends, sick-leave incentive and longevity. There are two categories, stipend recipients numbering 15 people and elected officials who received sick-leave and longevity payments numbering 2 people. The Comptroller specifically said that the sick-leave and longevity to elected officials was illegal and should be recouped. The total amount listed by the Comptroller is $141,000. There are a couple of additional points to make. As I read the resolution, I think it says that the Town should officially request the return of the money over a 5 year period. And perhaps most importantly, pension credits gained via these payments should be rescinded. That last one removes the "gift that keeps on giving."
ReplyDeleteQuite frankly, the recipients are lucky that the material was not submitted to Government Audit Standards in the course of the review. That would probably have meant a referral.
Of interest might be this Post by Dave Hancox, the former director of State Audit at the NYS Office of the State Comptroller:
http://davehancox.blogspot.com/2011/09/bureaucratic-shuffle-potential-fraud-in.html
Dave.....there is one glaring error in your argument, and it sounds like it might be at the heart of your argument, and that is that "the employer indemnifies an employee for anything that happens during the course of their duties." I just don't believe that you can find anyplace, in any employment context, any indemnification against illegal or unethical activities. There is a "culture" in this Town which pervades the political establishment on both sides of the aisle which says anything goes just so long as you can get away with it. Just do it. The moral compasses have no magnets. It's the culture that permits a final Plat approval to get signed without a meeting or Resolution by the Planning Board. It's the culture which breeds and supports the favoritism for the political insiders and connected at the expense of the average Joe. Think about the long struggle to get that Ethics Code done, and how personal and political conflicts of interest kept side-tracking the process.
ReplyDeleteSorry, Jack and Tom, I respectfully disagree with you abt Mr. VW. A vote for DVW is a vote to return to the glory days of operational and fiscal mismanagement when Rick McCabe was in office. I daresay Mr. VW would not have the slightest problem with that as long as he gets the one remaining year of service he needs to qualify for a town pension. His arguments against the stipend reso are the first taste of his inexperience. He would have been better off not responding but we're glad he did. After reading his take on the stipend reso, are you still "proud to run against him" are are you really more determined than ever to run against him? I await your answer.
ReplyDeleteI just read the resolution, apparently the person who told me about it was referring to the fact that only 2 people are being targeted for Sick time incentive and Longevity. I have to say that there are more in this category than those 2, over the years. After reading it, my answer is the same. I would not back that resolution as it has no detail as to what it would cost the town and no professional opinions. I believe this was reso was put up for one reason and one reason only...and it is purely political....and that is what is and has been wrong with our town government. The political games have to stop, all it does is impede our ability to move forward. As i said earlier, if this is going to be done, it needs to back as far as we have records, not just to 2007.
ReplyDeleteAs for your last post, there is a word in many statutes and sections of law, that says alot. It is "knowingly". None of these people accepted this money, "knowing" it was improper. The employer paid the employee, the employee accepted it in "good faith". When it was pointed out that these payments should not have happened, they stopped. The Town would have to provide defense for these individuals, because they did not "knowingly" do anything wrong, That is fact.
There are only two ELECTED OFFICIALS who are being "targeted" (your word) for taking sick leave and/or longevity payments because elected officials are not entitled to those payments under the law. Mr. Van Wormer, if you want to be Supervisor of a town of over 16,000 people, you really need to study and understand an issue before you speak about it. You are not helping yourself on this blog today where this issue is concerned.
ReplyDeleteThat is from 2007 on. I have studied it and know that many elected officials before 2007 got stipends. My point is that if it going to be done, it needs to be done correctly, that being everyone. And yes, Targeted is the word i use, because they are being targeted because of politics. If not, lets go back to the 70's, 80's and 90's.
ReplyDeleteI am done with this subect, as far a the blog goes. I said I wasn't going to get into a back and forth on this, in the beginning, I gave you my answer and my reasoning.
Some time ago in the context of all the claims about the “age” and extent of the stipend “tradition,” I FOILed for stipend information dating back to 1990. Remember that the assertion of the administration and its surrogates is that they have been going on for decades. The results are in from the Town.
DeleteThere are no records older than 2003 which refer to anything called a stipend which the Town could supply to me. I was invited to compare earlier budgets and pay records in order to discover what I may be looking for. I was also supplied with a copy of a citation which says that the Town is not required to create a record in order to comply with a FOIL request. So, if no record exists for stipends earlier than 2003, it is difficult to believe the “decades” assertion, without any facts to support it. Those making that assertion should be required to create the record to support it.
I was supplied with information supported by documents signed by Supervisor Angelini for the years 2003 – 2005. They listed the following disbursements with the totals reflecting three years of disbursements:
From 2003 through 2005 the total disbursement for stipends was $25623.68. Recipients were:
Cherubino - $4999.80
Ingoldsby - $2192.30
Mason - $3743.80
McCarthy - $5999.76
Murphy - $1199.90
Partak - $7488.12
All distributed in bi-weekly pay. No authority in the form of minutes or resolutions was provided. They did include a "payroll status change" form for each signed by Angelini. Nothing like this was provided for the stipends FOILed for 2006 - 2009. We just got the McCabe notes raising each salary. Angelini’s stipends for the three years available were:
Average per year 2003 -2005 ------ $8,541
Excluding 2006 which was a mixed Angelini/McCabe year and has some questionable elements in the data, McCabe's stipends were as follows:
Bennett - $21,000
Cherubino - $10,199
Hicks - $4,000
Ingoldsby - $21,000
Mason - $2,908
McCabe, Lauren - $7,000
McCabe, Rick - $10,000
McCarthy - $3,111
Moore - $5,000
Murphy - $13,200
Nero - $6,000
Partak - $17,400
Tuffey - $2,000
Average per year 2007 - 2009 ------- $40,500
So the number of recipients doubles, and the amount disbursed per year increases by about 475% by my calculation. This is hardly the way it “always has been done.” And there is a real question about the “always.”
Seems to me that somebody found a weakness in internal controls and ran with it.
Gadfly, I believe the weakness in internal controls in EG has always been that there are none.
DeleteI would like people to take note of Mr. Van Wormer's tone in his last post.
"I am done with this subject, as far a the blog goes. I said I wasn't going to get into a back and forth on this, in the beginning, I gave you my answer and my reasoning."
He sounds rather strident for someone trying to get elected. I can only imagine how that will change if he actually gets elected. Do the words, "the resolution is the resolution" come to mind?
Gadfly, your knowledge of the stipend history is incredible and invaluable. Thank you.
Dave.....as a former Cop you know that ignorance of the Law is no excuse. And "ignorance" of Town Law is really really no excuse for Town officials. Here's a summary of the NYS Town Law related to salaries from the NYS Association of Towns:
ReplyDeleteBriefly, the bottom line on the stipend issue is that disbursement of salaries for elected officials in excess of those specifically outlined in the “notice of hearing” on the budget published in November is not lawful absent the passage of a local law, and disbursement of salaries for appointed employees in excess of those listed on the Annual Compensation Schedule adopted with the budget and appended to the minutes of the Organizational Meeting of the Board in January is not lawful absent a Board resolution.
Please note the quotations below from the Town Law Manual published by the NYS Association of Towns.
“ ARTICLE III, Compensation of Officers and Employees (Town Law § 27)
§ 5-16. Notice of amounts; increases.
Salaries of the supervisor and town board members, an elected town clerk and an elected town superintendent must be set forth in the notice of public hearing on the preliminary budget. Those salaries cannot be set at an amount greater than that which appears in the notice. There is provision, however, for the town board to increase even these salaries once during the year by adopting a local law subject to permissive referendum pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law. These salaries can always be fixed at lesser amounts, however. The salaries of town officers and employees generally may not be fixed at or increased to an amount greater than the amount appropriated for such purpose (Town Law § 117). Proposed salaries of town justices, tax collectors and receivers, a town attorney, a town engineer, an appointed town clerk or an appointed town superintendent of highways are not required to be specified in the notice of public hearing.
§ 5-17. Salaries.
The budgetary provision for salaries of town officers does not of itself establish these salaries at the amounts set forth in the annual budget. Further town board action is necessary to fix these salaries.
A. Establishment; modification. Salaries of town officers (elective and appointive) and of employees and their pay periods are fixed each year by resolution of the town board at its organizational meeting at the first of the year. The Town Law provides that these salaries may be fixed "from time to time," which means that the town board may increase or decrease salaries throughout the year as it chooses, subject to the limitations
discussed below [Town Law § 27(1)].”
And the last paragraph of Sec. 27 of NYS Town Law: “4. Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision one of this section, the budget officer may receive, in addition to any other compensation, a salary as budget officer to be fixed by the town board.”
Do we really want another town supervisor who needs to be educated to this extent? Plus, all this sound reasoning seems to be falling on deaf ears already just like it did when we were trying to educate Langley about the negatives of a casino on a community. We need qualified, educated, experienced people in office who can hit the ground running. We don't need wannabe who needs extensive amount of on-the-job training. The town is simply in no condition to sustain another rookie, political hack for another four years.
DeleteNO DVW 2015!
Dave, what about the fact that the OSC specifically recommended that the Town DO seek legal counsel to recoup these fees??? The OSC has no political stake in our town, so how is this a political move? Yes, this should have been acted upon in November 2012 when Langley signed a letter in response to the Corrective Action Plan given by the OSC, but he's done NOTHING. Doesn't mean this serious recommendation by the OSC should be washed under the table because too much time has passed.
ReplyDeleteBottom line in all of this is that people in positions of public responsibility have an obligation to know the law.....and use a bit of common sense and not rely on "what has always been done" as a guide to performance of their duties.
ReplyDeleteRight on, Gadfly. Those that are ignorant of our town laws, does not deserve the privilege of holding public office. It's interesting Gadfly, that over the years you have been citing town laws over and over, while our elected officials and those seeking public office have had little to say about town law. Looks like some brushing up is in order for ALL the candidates.
ReplyDeleteThe bottom line is that all the resolution seeks to do is ASK the people who took improperly disbursed funds from their local government to return it. It was disbursed illegitimately, improperly, and illegally. What more do they need to know? But especially Toni Murphy who has absolutely cleaned up on sick leave and longevity payments that she, as an elected official, had NO RIGHT to. Give it back, Toni! It's the right thing to do.
ReplyDeleteThe political establishment on both sides of the aisle in this Town has to expect and actually deserves to get hammered. I don't think anyone can cite a single finding or recommendation in an OSC audit which has been followed up on by any administration. Where's the Financial Recovery Plan called for by OSC and Financial Advisers? Nobody did anything, and now Moody's has dropped another bomb on us.
ReplyDeleteWhat does the new Moodys rating mean for East Greenbush?
ReplyDeletewe somehow managed to be worse than junk bond status...
DeleteHere's a link and a summary of the action. As I understand it, the unaudited Annual Update Document which the Town submits to the Office of the State Comptroller is no longer sufficient to sustain a Moodys rating. The new rules require audited financial statements. And we've been told by both Toski and Wojeski that our financial records are unauditable at the present time.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Places-4-Local-Government-Obligors-On-Review-Direction-Uncertain--PR_332380
New York, August 12, 2015 -- Moody's Investors Service has placed the ratings of four local government obligors on review with direction uncertain, affecting approximately $11.9 million of outstanding debt.
RATING RATIONALE
Moody's Investors Service has placed four New York local government general obligation bond ratings under review direction uncertain in keeping with a new requirement for independently audited financial statements for New York local governments. The requirement for independently audited financial statements makes the unaudited annual update documents no longer sufficient for maintenance of a Moody's rating. Moody's will likely withdraw the ratings of Issuers who do not provide an audit with 30 days. This action follows a survey period which requested additional information typically found in audited statements to incorporate in our analysis.
The publication "New Requirement for Audited Financials for Rating NY Local Governments" is available on Moodys.com at https://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBM_PBM156892
The affected obligors are:
Broadalbin (Village of) NY
East Greenbush (Town of) NY
Webb (Town of) NY
Williamson (Town of) NY
We have to wonder how our town comptroller will spin/talk his way out of this one. If he can't do it, our Chief Executive/Financial Officer Keith Langley certainly should be able to do it...lol!
ReplyDeleteThere's another take on the independent audit matter. Toski and Wojeski said at their meeting with the Board that the financials could be audited if the books would be certified by the Chief Financial Officer. That would mean that a CPA could audit the representation of management. An audit would mean the production of findings and recommendations. In the case of East Greenbush it would also (without much doubt) mean the issuing of a "qualified opinion." I'd bet that the avoidance of findings, recommendations and qualified opinion are the reasons behind no independent audit. The problems would be clearly stated in the document.
ReplyDeleteIf you connect the dots on the paving of Thompson Hill Road, the main beneficiary of of the Town's picking up the tab for the two day detour for which it was not responsible turns out to be Larry Davis, the major investor who brought us the casino fiasco. And you can add the other investors building that "duplex" with four front doors.
ReplyDelete