East Greenbush Isn't Broken, It's "Fixed."
Although East Greenbush has a Master
Plan, it is routinely over ridden for the benefit of a select few
developers. A perfect example of this is the Thompson Way Subdivision
(PDD), where Hart and Maney are building the first duplex. There is a
great deal of dispute over whether or not the final development plan
even received Planning Board approval. What there can be no dispute
about is the 1/4/13 Memo in which the developer agreed to be responsible
for repaving Thompson’s Hill Road for $93,000.
However, on 9/3/13 the town approved a
plan to spend over $145,000 to pave it. No bids were ever solicited and
Rifenberg Construction, our Supervisors former employer, was given the
contract. The money used for this, GEIS funds given by FEDEX, was
supposed to go for sidewalks and other amenities on Route 4 and Couse
Corners. The stated reason was that the town needed a two day detour
for the building of the Mannix Road round about on Route 4, despite the
fact that Route 4 is state owned and the town is not responsible.
—WHY DID THE TOWN BOARD SPEND MONEY TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER ALREADY AGREED TO?
—WHY DID THE BOARD SPEND AN EXTRA $53,000 BEYOND WHAT THE DEVELOPER SAID IT WOULD COST?
—WHY DID THE BOARD MAKE EXCUSES ABOUT THE REASON TO PAVE THE ROAD, WHEN THE TOWN HAD NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DETOUR?
—WHY DIDN’T THE BOARD PUT THE PAVING CONTRACT UP FOR BID?
—WHY DID THE TOWN BOARD SPEND MONEY ALREADY EARMARKED FOR OTHER AMENITIES, SIDEWALKS ETC, THAT HAVE YET TO BE BUILT?
THE REASON IS SIMPLE: EAST GREENISH ISN’T BROKEN IT’S FIXED.
We need a NEW political party in this town
https://eastgreenbushtruth.wordpress.com/2015/08/13/todays-advertiser-part-1-2/
http://www.eastgreenbush.org/government/town-board/agendas/doc_download/1066-932013-special-meeting-minutes
Has anybody noticed reso 147 on the town's pre-board agenda? It's calling for Langley to actually do something about the stipends. Finally, it's being acknowledged and addressed by the TB! The last "Resolved" is good, too. How will Langley vote on this one?
ReplyDeleteWill that reso 147 include removal of their pension credits too? The pension credits they received for the unauthorized stipends they received means we are paying for those unauthorized stipends for the rest of their lives. The pension credits should be taken away as well.
ReplyDeleteGadfly, unless there are good, rational answers to the questions addressed in this thread, I have to agree with the author.
ReplyDeleteDave VW's response on Talks is interesting. He is making the assumption the legal costs would be more than the amount recouped. Odd--since they received pension credits for those stipends and the money paid for those pension credits continues for the rest of the recipients lives. However, not so odd because one of the people on his ticket, Toni Murphy, is a stipend and pension credit recipient. It gives the appearance that Dave VW is playing politics and favoritism which is another reason EG1st has to win this election. Dave proves the Dem choice is no better than the Republican choice.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that Dave VW is correct about--the reso should include ALL stipend recipients and not simply a select few unless the reso is in regards to only sick and longevity pay which only a couple of elected officials who were not eligible for it took.
The pension credits--should be taken back.
The Resolution address stipends, longevity and sick-leave and that includes 15 people, and does not single out two. It also addresses the issue of pension credits. I'd say that the pension credit matter should be accomplished whether or not the money is recouped from the recipients. Here's what I posted in response to Dave on the previous thread:
DeleteDave....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."
Quite 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
1:58 PM it was also posted here Dave VanWormer August 14, 2015 at 10:20 AM
DeleteDo any of the other Supervisor candidate care to weigh in on this?
DVW responded to a question posed to him and no one else!
I second 5:56's request for other candidates to weigh in. It's never going to happen, Jack would, Dave has, but Langley doesn't have a mind of his own, and Poorman has offered us nothing but Langley's failures. Newsflash Mike, we already know Langley shouldn't be reelected, so stop wasting your money on your campaign ads and tell us what you stand for.
DeleteGadfly, at the pre-board meeting yesterday, CP Malone stated that the OSC audit findings and recommendations are not enough to justify approval of the stipend resolution. What is your read on that?
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I think he wants to pick and choose which legally established control and oversight agencies he pays attention to. It's a perfect example of the "wink and nod" and "get away with what you can" culture in East Greenbush. It will go on until the people who foster it can't anymore.
DeleteI attended the pre-bd mtg yesterday as well; it was actually very well attended for a 4 p.m. mtg. I noticed towards the end of the meeting that Mr. Malone was acting like the democrats version of Ed Gilbert. He was arguing so vehemently against the stipend and other resos that CP Matters had to call for adjournment. Mr. Langley sat quietly staring at his lap and hoping to stay out of the cross-fire. It will be interesting to see how our supervisor votes on the stipend reso. He could have done this in 2012 when he was first elected but he never did. I wonder why?
ReplyDeleteTo be frank, CP Malone has attended maybe 50% of the meetings over the last year, out of the half that he did attend he was constantly taking a potty break. What comes out of his mouth means nothing. People who continue to attack Don and Suzanne or feel that this is a political move regarding the stipends are missing the most important fact. The NYS Office of State Comptroller explicitly stated that their were illegal stipends and that the town should seek legal counsel, case and point. That simple. So, honestly, no offense to Dave, no offense to Don or Suzzane, no offense to Phil, but theirs and the anonymous bloggers opinions really don't matter. It was a very specific recommendation by the OSC. I will take the OSC's opinion over CP Malone, or any other politician in our town.
DeleteAgreed, so why not go back further and recoup from the rest? If it was wrong in 2007, it was wrong in 1997. We don't need osc to tell us that.
DeleteThere's no need for a Resolution. All Langley needs to do is write a letter asking for the money back, citing the State Comptroller's Language. It's just that simple. Did anyone on the Town Board ask Dave G., the Town Attorney, about this at the pre-board meeting? I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult for him to write up a letter for Langley's signature. CP Matters should ask Dave G's opinion on this and stop all this grandstanding with this unnecessary Resolution. Everybody needs to grow up here.
ReplyDelete4:49 p.m. The supervisor's most important role is to carry out the decisions of the town board in accordance with the resolutions that either pass or fail. The members of the town board make these decisions as a legislative body. Without a resolution, some supervisors, but especially this supervisor, would not act to recoup the illegitimately disbursed stipends. We know this because he's been in office since 2012 and has made no efforts to address it. If the reso passes on Wed, the attorney to the town will undoubtedly be called upon to write the letter. This resolution was not written to "grandstand" and it is definitely not "unnecessary" but even if it was, why would any tax-paying citizen living or working in EG object to an effort to recoup $141,000 of improperly disbursed town funds. I implore you to Google "2012M-116" and go to Appendix A - Taxpayers Complaints (p.13). Take a look at Tables 4, 5 and 6. Look at the reasons the stipends were disbursed, add up the dollar amounts that were taken FOR YEARS, and tell us why these individuals should be allowed to keep this money. Remember, these are tax dollars. Talk about an abuse of public trust! If CP Malone and Supervisor Langley don't care about the money that was taken from their wallets and yours to pay these people extra money that was NOT approved by the town board, then they will vote no on Wed. Let's just see what happens and go from there.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with all this is that the Democratic Committee has nominated a candidate who received $40,200 of these funds as an elected official. Elected officials are supposed to know and follow the law.
ReplyDeleteYes that is very true Anon 6:08 pm and now Dave VanWormer candidate for Town Supervisor/Democrat Committee Person has gone on record as condoning these illegal payments. It should also be noted that Pete Stenson who is also running for public office was appointed as the new Chairman of the Democrat Committee.
DeleteIt is a shame that this group just refuses to do right by the residents of our town. They continue to thumb their noses at ethical behavior that should be a given. Same ole, same ole, business as usual with these people. They put themselves on their political committee then nominate themselves to run for office. Very discouraging.
The comment removed by a blog administrator at 5:52 on Talks was "can anybody spell lot line adjustment?"
ReplyDeleteBottom line.....how does a Plat approval get signed without a meeting or a Resolution of the Planning Board? We've been asking that question a number of times, and have been met with blank stares in public meetings. The Planning Board needs to answer and the Attorneys for the Town and the PB need to answer. Maybe we need to ask the Third Department disciplinary committee for an opinion.
ReplyDeleteYou idiots really don't get it do you? The process is for the board to approve a preliminary plat approval and then perform the construction of the roads and utilities. once completed the final plat approval can be applied for. Preliminary plat approval was processed a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you get it. You've got it backwards. You don't get to do construction until the plans are approved. Your operatives shorts are showing.
DeleteAnd there was no meeting and no resolution.
DeleteNot only do they NOT know what they're doing, they call people who do know "idiots." This town is experiencing a crisis of corruption. They are so afraid of losing the control they've already lost that they are glued to the GF blog desperately flailing so they don't go under. People need to know that a claim of "It's About Trust and Our Home Town..." in the Advertiser with your family by your side snd big smiles all around just doesn't cut it. We don't "trust" this supervisor with good reason and our "home town" needs saving.
ReplyDelete838, you are correct, that's how it's done in East Greenbush and if you are part of the select few. Fortunately, this blog has some intelligence and can read. Town Law §276(6c) "'Preliminary plat approval' means the approval of the layout of a proposed subdivision as set forth in a preliminary plat but subject to the approval of the plat in final form in accordance with the provisions of this section." Furthermore, there was a required public hearing that never occurred, and "filing of decision on final plat. Within five business days from the date of the adoption of the resolution stating the decision of the board on the final plat, the chairman or other duly authorized member of the planning board shall cause a copy of such resolution to be filed in the office of the town clerk".
ReplyDeleteWhere was that resolution?
East Greenbush is "fixed" alright. Take a look at the minutes about the redirecting of the money to pave the road. It's Dems with the idea, Dems moving and seconding to take care of Dems.
ReplyDeleteLook, it is time to call things as they are. The Maney and Hart alliance has always been unholy and more than a little dirty. They dominate the Democratic Party and as long as the democratic held a majority on the town board dirty deals got pushedhrough. We all hoped Langley would be different but he folded to pressure in his first day sin office like a cheap suit.
ReplyDeleteHope is called Jack Conway and his excellent team. That, friends and neighbors, is the real deal.
Yup...you nailed it. And by the way, Mangold should have recused herself on that "second" and vote to divert the funds and pave Thompson Hill Road. Brother and all that....
DeleteGiven Sue Mangold is a Hart, both she and the supervisor should have insisted that she thoroughly research her family's ties to the casino project. Many will never believe that she never once asked her family members, especially her father and brothers, if any of them had business ties to the project. It would have been a natural inquiry given her position on the town board. But she proceeded to vote anyway (twice!) in ignorance, according to her, of her family's involvement. She also left many sections of her financial disclosure form blank except for writing "unknown" rather than researching and answering the questions. Whether talking about stipends, responsible disclosure of information, proper pursuit of permits, etc., it seems apparent that she and Dave VM both believe that ignorance IS an excuse for breaking the law. They didn't know so give them a pass! Try telling a police officer you didn't know the speed limit was 30 mph and see what happens. But does anyone see a pattern of thinking here? Just do as you please and when you get caught, plead ignorance to the law. This is the level of game playing that has got to stop!
ReplyDeleteJack/Tina/Tom 2015
Deb DiMartino knew about it in her meeting with Mr. Feathers. Hard to believe Deb knew and not his own sister. Deb specifically asked about the options on the Larry Davis property, as well as the Maney/Hart property. This is when Feathers also said he wanted Rosewood Gardens. Sure, they're healthy residents who could have easily found a new place to rehabilitate. Thank goodness that disaster is over.
DeleteI asked a direct question of Ms. Mangold right after the casino initiative became public a year ago last April. She answered in an e-mail that "Anthony and brother" were building a house, but had nothing to do with the casino. That assertion was disclosed to be false when the conflict of interest was disclosed in the Capital View application documents submitted to the Gaming Commission.
DeleteIt looks like Mike Poorman might have peaked too soon. Word on the street is that Keith Langley is winning back many of his 2011 election supporters.
ReplyDeleteSurvey says "NOT A CHANCE IN HELL". Langley @ this point has lost his supporters to EG1 & Poorman. EVERYONE @ THIS POINT, KNOWS OF THE SHENANIGANS GOING ON IN THIS TOWN & WERE FED UP....a little to late for Langley & his henchmen. Not only have you lost your supporters, you've lost control of the majority vote. Deb & MAM no longer support you & neither do their supporters & friends & family of those supporters. It's not LQQKING to bright for your future Mr. Supervisor.
DeleteI'm thinking about giving Langley another shot in the primary. I didn't like it when Poorman was working against Lsngley while he was collecting a check every two weeks as his Deputy Supervisor.
Delete4:07 p.m. You can write in Jack's name. You don't have to settle for one (Langley) or the other (Poorman). People, educate yourselves about your voting OPTIONS before you go to the polls. With so many choices, it's imperative that we get it right.
Delete2:24pm is right. Poorman has been a major disappointment to many Republicans who were hoping for a viable alternative to Langley. Poorman seems totally focused on himself and less so on the future of East Greenbush. He couldn't even get a slate of candidates to run with him.
ReplyDeleteBlah blah blah,
DeleteLangley had his time maybe Poorman isn't as bad. My thinking is you know the devil you have right?
Although my vote will go for neither.
Gadfly, it's unfair to post comments like those of 3:24 p.m. Mr. Poorman was deputy supervisor for a very short time because that is how long it took him to realize that the town is being grossly underserved by Keith Langley. Not only might Mr. Poorman be a viable alternative to Keith Langley, he deserves credit for primarying a sitting supervisor, which is not an easy thing to do. Clearly, Langley supporters are using your blog to run Mr. Poorman down because they actually consider him to be a viable threat to Mr. Langley. I hope you will post my comment in an effort to be fair and balanced. We all know that nobody can beat Jack so there's no harm in it.
ReplyDelete6:29. Poorman was fired by Langley because Poorman was actively trying to disrupt the workings of our Town Government from the inside. Since he was let go, he attends TB meetings, says nothing himself, and directs Deb and MAM to continue their disruptive behavior. Poorman is not a leader, he is a divider. Not a very good choice to be our next Supe.
DeletePoorman might be even less of a people person than Langley. I'd like to know why he wasn't able to form a team to run with him. It doesn't seem like he is able to speak in front of a roomful of people. He comes off as strictly a back room wheeler and dealer. We've had enough of that in EG.
DeleteWhere was Mike Poorman during the several months of the casino siting debacle? Nowhere! He was nowhere to be found!! That's not the type of candidate I would vote for. We certainly don't need a Nowhere Man as Supervisor.
DeleteMike Poorman claims to be a loyal, lifelong Republican. So where's he been for the last 16 years? He left the Town Board in the last (20th) Century. He's just yesterday's news.
DeleteDon't we have recognize by now that the casino monkey business was hatched with the cooperation of the insiders of both major party machines? Collusion, secrecy, lying, conspiracy. We need to remove them and their operatives from influence. Look at that Plat approval for Thompson Hill. No answers, just blank stares. The attorney for the Planning Board has been questioned. No answer. The Town attorney has been questioned. No answer. Might be time for some action from the professional performance committees of the Third Department of the State's courts. The Town's attorneys are not just supposed to keep the jack asses out of trouble. They are supposed to advise as to the law.
ReplyDeleteNo offense to Jack but I'm not sure he's the right person for the Supervisor position. I feel that the current Supervisor would be able to do a much better job if Tina and Tom were to win Town Board seats and work with Keith to focus on what's in the best interest of the town, instead of this obvious attempt at a "power grab" being orchestrated by Poorman, Matters, and DiMartino.
ReplyDeleteJack would be a great choice for a Town Board member, or even better return to his position once held as ethics board chairman.
I'm not promoting here, just expressing an opinion based on looking at all the candidates individually as apposed grouping them by political parties.
Good Luck To All.
You should be commended for posting an opinion in a respectful manner
Deletebut I respectfully disagree with your assessment. Jack is smart, articulate, and thorough. He can get along with others and is running for office to make the town a better place, not to advance an agenda.
I also disagree that Tina and Tom could work with Langley. Not because of them, but because of his style. He can't tell them what to do, they are both intelligent, and they aren't going to negotiate deals.
Talk to Jack. Talk to the other candidates. You might change your mind.
7:48 - Keith Langley has had many opportunities to do the right thing and he has failed over and over again. Tina and Tom will, I'm sure, do their best with him if it is good for the Town but the far better choice will be Jack Conway who is committed to the Town and able to execute good government. East Greenbush, don't miss this opportunity.
DeleteTo the person who thinks Langley would cooperate with Tina and Tom - If you remember - he was supposed to form a team with Deb and Mary Ann and they are from his own party. Did he? Only insofar as they did everything he told them to and kept their mouths shut. Oh - also he did not share vital documents with them. They were in the same boat with the Dems - "You want to see'um? Foil'um. Yeah and now you think Tom and Tina would be treated differently? Langley is the sorriest example of a public officer that I have ever seen. I think you'd better bring your memory up to date. Jack, Tom and Tina in 2015!!
Delete7:28PM Your comment "Deb and MAM to continue their disruptive behavior." -Could you elaborate on that? So, calling the Supervisor out & making him own his decisions & actions on issues that have not been handled correctly by no one other than himself is now being called DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR??? I'm sorry are you new to town? Langley doesn't share prudent information with either women & when he gives them material, contracts, PDD proposals etc. it's not given in ample time for them to make any type of educated or informed decision hence them asking for more time re: this issues. IT'S NOT DISRUPTIVE...IT"S BEING RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS!!!!
ReplyDeleteI'd say that a Rep of any stripe in the corner office is just another invitation for DeF and Crist to get their hands on East Greenbush. We've had enough of both.
ReplyDelete@ AnonymousAugust 19, 2015 at 10:14 AM---Ignore 7:18PM. Clearly it is a Langley operative of which there are only a handful remaining. The head operative being Ed Gilbert.
ReplyDeleteThe Langley operatives are scared witless that Keith's days are numbered, so they're using the GF blog (the one they've criticized in the past) to run down anyone who's a threat to King Keith. Y'know, I really don't get the Langley thing, I never have. He did everything in his power to run off Debbi and MA but instead of calling him on it, they're trying to bring him back with a new majority (Larry and Trent). Why do they think that this will work any better? Should Larry and Trent be insulted? Deb and MA are in an excellent position to be part of a new majority. If anyone but Langley and DVW win supervisor, they have an instant majority waiting for them with Deb and MA. If Pete and/or Andrea win or if Tina and/or Tom win...well there are just too many possible combinations of winners here who could form a majority but we know for sure that at least three of them will join forces to better the town. This is an unbelievably exciting time to live in EG, and ALL because of the casino! How amazing is that? Way to go, Keith!
ReplyDeleteAnother spectacular display of nonsense by Ed Gilbert at the Town Board meeting tonight. Another personal attack against Mary Ann. You don't have to agree with her but come on! Of course the Supervisor just let it go on as usual. The most childish behavior......need I say anymore? There was a woman who stood up and reamed both Ed and Mr Langley a new one. Bravo!
ReplyDeleteBig mistake tonight by Malone and Langley related to the interests of the taxpayers of East Greenbush. On the resolution to request from the recipients the inappropriate and illegal payments of stipends, longevity and sick-leave they voted NO. The State Comptroller had identified these amounts and recipients and recommended action to recoup them. The resolution specified a request for repayment. The State's retirement division can't rescind pension credits unless the funds are recouped. So unless some action is taken to recoup, the Town is on the hook for inappropriate pension credits until the recipient dies. (The gift that keeps on giving.)
ReplyDeleteWhether the funds are recouped or not is almost beside the point. Letters requesting repayment should be sent, and the recipients and amounts published. A lot of "political protection" was done tonight by Mr. Langley and Mr. Malone.
Did Keith Langley give a reason for his NO vote to recoup the stipends?
ReplyDeleteKeith Langley doesn't have the money to finish paving streets BUT he votes NO to recouping stipends which were monies, OUR monies, that should not have been paid and accepted in the first place. On top of that we are all paying for those stipends, through the pension credits, for the rest of the recipients' lives and Keith can't pave streets because he doesn't have the money. Honest to GOD! What a buffoon that moron is!
ReplyDeleteKeith should work for US the TAXPAYERS and vote to GET OUR MONEY BACK! What a jerk! That's TWICE we were ripped off by those stipends. The guy that administered the stipends, McCabe and Co. ripped us off by paying them and now Keith Langley has ripped us off by not taking them back. I can't stand Poorman but I hope he beats Keith in GOP Primary.
Keith is a RIPOFF of our tax dollars too because we we pay that mendacious bum's salary!
What I find as offensive is that one of the key offenders of this compensation-padding game is running unopposed for re-election on the Democratic ticket.
ReplyDeleteShe has the gall to hold on to $27,000 in Longevity and Sick Leave Incentives that the OSC affirmed is unauthorized. Their report states "It is well established that elected officials do not accrue sick leave credits". How can it be that our Receiver of Taxes has not repaid the town once this "error" came to light? The OSC examined only a short period of time (1/1/10 - 10/31/11). What would an auditor unearth if an expanded timeframe was scrutinized?
It is clear that our Receiver of Taxes does not possess the attributes required to safeguard our tax dollars. Her position requires integrity and absolute honesty. Sadly, she lacks both.
What's the difference between Martin Reid taking illegal benefits and the two East Greenbush officials taking illegal benefits?
ReplyDeleteOH, come on please... Lets get real here... There can be no reasonable comparison ... Stipends were not right for sure, but it was not deliberate lying trying to hide earned income.
DeleteI was referring to the longevity and sick-leave benefits which the State Comptroller said were illegally received by elected officials and drawing the comparison to Reid's unemployment benefits illegally received.
Delete