Monday, October 3, 2016

Good reason for E. G. Ethics Code Amendments

Ken Crowe's TU story about the Rensselaer County Democratic Committee offers a good argument for the proposed Ethics Code amendments.  Here's a link to the story:

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Disloyalty-becomes-an-issue-for-Rensselaer-County-9547192.php

29 comments:

  1. Mary Ann Matters and Pete Stenson; What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ethics in EG has always been a vague concept. McCabe, Malone and O'Brien could not define the word with a dictionary. Langley was barely better.

    There is nothing tricky, difficult or complicated when it comes to behaving ethically. Put the people of the town first. It is as simple as that.

    People can have faith in Jack Conway to do exactly that. Pretty amazing given the town's sad history but so refreshing now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why don't many people attend Town Board meetings anymore?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the majority (Pun intended) is because we can have confidence in our town board and our supervisor to do the right things the right way. The need to watch, to question, to hold elected officials accountable is greatly diminished with this pretty fine group of people running the town. Jack is also totally accessible. He is responsive, open, honest. That has to be a factor too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The meetings are now run in a professional and responsive manner. There's no unnecessary drama and "look at me" theatrics as there was under the Smart Way Forward "Majority" (pun intended). I'm so glad my family voted for JTT in the last election. They have truly "Made East Greenbush Great" again.

      Delete
    2. Only if EG was great again....People our leaving our town left & right. We pay too much money & get ougats for it.

      Delete
  5. Just wondering where the outcry is for not following the law and holding another hearing before the code was passed. I guess as long as it's your guys breaking the law all is good

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, sorry 10/21 at 1:02, you must have missed the meeting. At the meeting the Town Attorney assured the public that no additional Public Hearing was needed. The Ethics Law passed in accordance with all applicable laws and procedures being followed in good faith. So, as you guessed, all is really good and no outcry is necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ohhhh the town attorney assured everyone, well that's different. NOT!
    The law is clear amendments after the hearing require another hearing. these are not minimal changes like renumbering or title changes they significantly expand who is affected and when an employee is subject to the code. they should have been discussed and commented on by the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm...these changes were discussed at the Public Hearing and were made as a result of the discussion. There were two Public Hearings held in accordance with the law. What was clear was that it was time to vote and letting a single obstructionist stall the vote and waste a month would been inappropriate.
      The public outcry happened over the past few years when the citizens made it clear that they wanted a strong Ethics Code. That law has passed, publicly and legally.

      Delete
  8. 10/22 @ 11:09 "A single obstructionist?" And just who would that be? For your information, the so-called town attorney is undoubtedly looking to be reappointed in January by JTT, so how willing do you think he is right now to piss off Jack Conway? Not very! JTT was fed up with public hearings, "pencils down" said Mrs. Councilor Grant, enough is enough! But it sounded like substantive language changes were made to the document and "the obstructionist" pointed out that whenever you change a law, even by one word, it can change the entire meaning of a sentance, so you have to have another public hearing BY LAW! So, isn't it ironic that Mr. Ethics himself may have broken the law by not slowing his roll and having one more hearing? And now, he's got Mr. Nasty himself Eddie Boy Gilbert on his tail, threatening in the Advt today to fight the filing of the amended law because we weren't given another chance to comment. Does JTT really need that kind of bad publicity? No one minded "the obstructionist" last year when she was fighting Langley tooth and nail until JTT took over. How quickly we forget.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only missing element in the new code is that they didn't put it was unethical for Board member to post anonymously on blogs.

      Delete
    2. 7:55 You didn't think that one through before you posted it...lol!

      Delete
  9. So called Town Attorney? What does that mean? What law school did the obstructionist attend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't have to be weather man to know which way the wind blows

      Delete
  10. What? 8:33 p.m. Your comments make no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So, Gilbert and MAM couldn't stay off the koolaid a full year looking at these comments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Councilperson Matters indicated that any changes made to the ethics law after the public hearing should have required the scheduling of another public hearing to address the changes.
      Why on earth did CP Matters vote on the amended ethics law knowing that "Legal Process" was not followed when modifying this local law?

      Delete
  12. Looks like CP Matters was for the Resolution before she was against it. That's called trying to have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And why vote yes to it and then go to the Times Union and basically say she's not for it?!

      Delete
  13. Here's my question, why the rush? Couldn't the board simply schedule a new hearing and pass the law after that?

    ReplyDelete
  14. 12:20- FYI The Town Board passed the Ethics Law unanimously!!

    ReplyDelete
  15. @5:04 yeah I know but it may have been ill advised. Consider this; The board of ethics decides that someone has violated the code and refers the issue to the town board for discipline. Because they didn't have the extra hearing that person can now argue the whole code is defective because the public hearing wasn't held. It basically takes all the teeth out of the law. So, why the rush?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Why are people confused, there was a 2nd public hearing in September, which was followed by an October vote...#factsmatter.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @2:52 no confusion, when adopting a local law the law in its final form is subject to a public hearing. If the law remains unchanged then it can be voted on by the legislative body. If the law is amended, even if the amendments were discussed at the prior hearing, the law requires a new hearing. Facts matter, as do laws. Now, minor alterations such as renumbering or the title of a section are not significant enough to warrant a new hearing. The changes made to the code however are NOT minor. They expand the universe of who is affected and the period of time that an employee is subject to the code. A new public hearing prior to a vote was required.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you're going after the board who did their job and consulted the town attorney as to whether they needed another public hearing. Mary Ann was concerned there needed to be another meeting, but yet voted on the amendment anyway and THEN goes the to T.U.? If you are right, I am not a lawyer so I am not going to bother analyzing the law, and they indeed were supposed to have another hearing then the issue is with the attorney telling them they did not need to, not the Town Board. They were not hired to be our town attorney nor are any of them attorneys.

      Delete
    2. Well, 2:52. These issues have been considered and your opinion was taken into account and rejected. The Town Attorney has given his opinion. He is our Town's authority on these matters and has never given any indication that he is not reliable, honest and experienced. All members of the Town Council voted yes, approving the passage of the Ethics Code on the day it appeared on the agenda.
      It has passed, legally and in public. Time to stop tapping the breakes on this one. It is over.

      Delete
  18. What's behind the tag team of CP Mary Ann Matters and Dem Chairman Pete Stenson? Many think that's the next Democrat ticket for Town Board in 2017. Isn't it a little early to be political Mary Ann and Pete? Can't you give the politics a rest for just a little while?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When I speak as Dem Chair, I state to that effect. Am I prevented from speaking as a concerned citizen?

      Pete Stenson

      Delete