Scammed on Ethics – Yet Again?

You Decide

By Ray Mooney

At the October 2010 Town Board meeting Rick McCabe, Ginny O’Brien and Rick Matters voted unanimously to form an Ethics Board.

That is Resolution 161- 2010.

Part of the resolution mandated amendments to the 1975 ethics code “including, but not limited to, financial-disclosure provisions.”

The Ethics Board met on Monday, July 23, 2012 in what amounts to a now almost two year effort to amend the 1974 ethics code.

At the July 23 meeting the public was informed by Chairperson Jack Conway that the 2010 resolution and the financial disclosure provision had been repealed.

Keep in mind that Ethics Board meetings are wonderfully open and fully participatory. The public in attendance were incredulous and asked when and how the 2010 resolution was repealed.

We were told that the following language of resolution 117-2012 repealed the 2010 resolution:

“notwithstanding any previous directive from the Town Board to the Ethics Board.”

The public was told that the town attorney and the majority had advised the Ethics Board that this language repealed the 2010 resolution.

We were further told that the town attorney had informed the Ethics Board to the effect that since the 2010 resolution was based by a three member Town Board the current full Town Board could change the meaning and interpretation of the 2010 resolution to anything the majority now wanted.

Ginny O’Brien voted in favor of financial disclosure in 2010 and against financial disclosure in 2012.

I e-mailed Supervisor Langley and asked him if he knew and agreed that the above language of 117-2012 repealed the 2010 resolution. I have not received a response.

I asked Board Member Matters the same question. Rick’s response was that the language of 117-2012 is open to interpretation but he was not aware of the majority’s intent to have that language repeal the 2010 resolution.

One person close to all the discussion between the town attorney and the majority has told me that the only problem is that the town attorney was incompetent when he wrote the language of resolution 117-2012.

Other people have told me that they feel that the majority is trying to scam the public and avoid the responsibility to openly and publically state that they are repealing the 2010 resolution and its financial disclosure requirement.

What do you think?

                                    Mugged on Ethics

 Here we have history being re-written by the Oligarchy which is the 3-member majority of the Town Board led by Majority leader O’Brien.  The interests of the people of East Greenbush are being sacrificed to the interests of three people who want to avoid financial disclosure and preserve the practices of nepotism and patronage.  The Town Board’s “Ethics Code” has so many “exceptions” that citizens would be better off with the 1974 Code.  It’s business and usual in East Greenbush.  Those of you old enough will be reminded of governments in Eastern Europe in the ‘50’s.  As you read the commentary below, please remember Mr. Malone’s pontification at the June Board meeting referring to the three member majority– “what we pass, passes.”  We’ve been mugged by the three driven by self-interest, relieving themselves of the “inconvenient” responsibilities they have to all the citizens of East Greenbush.

117-2012                      A Resolution Referring the Proposed Code of Ethics for the Town of East Greenbush to the Ethics Board for Review and Comment

              

Please notice that the Title makes no reference to the Code developed by the duly appointed Board of Ethics in 2010.  The Code considered is the Code from the Board (read Liccardi). 

WHEREAS, a proposed Ethics Code was brought forward for a public hearing held on June 20^th 2012, and

Here again, no mention of the work done pursuant to Resolution 161-2010 dated October 13, 2010.

WHEREAS, the public hearing was held open and remains so as of this date, and

Public comment is allegedly still possible

WHEREAS, the Town Board desires receipt of comment from the Ethics Board upon the proposed Ethics Code, now

Comment on what we give you, not on the work you did.

BE IT RESOLVED, that the proposed  Code of Ethics for the Town of East Greenbush brought forward at a public hearing on June 20^th 2012 is hereby referred to the Board of Ethics for review and comment, and

Read it….

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the review and comment shall be limited in scope to remain within the parameters of the proposed Code, notwithstanding any previous directive from the Town Board to the Ethics Board, and

Don’t say anything about anything that we don’t tell you that you can talk about…..  Absolutely forget about that we originally told you that you must at least include provisions related to financial disclosure.  (Talk about “double-think” and cognitive dissonance.)  Papers please….. 

Here we have the Town board stating that it will not be responsible for anything previously stated or assigned or mandated.  Wouldn’t it be ducky if any citizen could absolve him/her self of previous commitments and responsibilities with such ease to meet the personal needs present at any point in time?  Ms. Mangold need to be absolved of financial entanglements, and Malone and O’Brien don’t want to be accountable for nepotism and patronage. 

You can’t talk about those matters in anything you submit to the Town board. 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Ethics Board review and comment shall be transmitted to the Town Board by way of a non-final inter-agency memorandum and,

What you say to us is to be said in secret so that the public will never know if you say anything which disagrees with what we sent you to “comment” on.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the public hearing shall remain open and adjourned without date.

The Town Board will decide what happens next, and it could quite possibly be a Resolution at an undetermined date which closes the public hearing and advances for passage the Board’s Code with no disclosure of anything offered by the Ethics Board. 

The foregoing Resolution was duly moved by Councilperson O’Brien and seconded by Councilperson Mangold and brought to a vote resulting as follows:

Councilperson O’Brien                       VOTED  _Yes__

Councilperson Mangold                     VOTED  _Yes__

Supervisor Langley                             VOTED  _Yes__

Councilperson Matters                       VOTED  _Yes__

Councilperson Malone                       VOTED  _Yes__

So what the Town Board three person majority wanted in the first place – a Code, rubber stamped by an obedient Ethics Board so it would look like the absence of financial disclosure, no sanctions against patronage and nepotism and business as usual in East Greenbush – could be enacted with the appearance of public vetting will actually happen.

The Ethics Board has been had, rolled, thrown under the bus, played, folded like a $2 suitcase.

Where is the consciousness of the Public Interest and Welfare on the part of both Boards? 

Everybody knew that the Board majority (oligarchy) would get what it wanted.  My question is why didn’t the Ethics Board make them publically pay for this assault on the public interest?  There were ample opportunities.  Is there some secret plan (like Nixon’s to end the Viet Nam war) that will make this colossal “cave” to the oligarchy understandable?  Yuri Andropov and Walter Ulbricht wrote that Resolution.  The people of EG are getting mugged.  Mr. Conway said at the June Ethics Board meeting that if Mr. Liccardi’s draft was adopted, it would be business as usual in EG.  He said he was going to say that at the Public Hearing.  He didn’t.  Seems to me that the people in a position to advocate in the interest of the people have caved to the oligarchy.  Really a sad day for East Greenbush.  The Machine rules once again.  “What we pass, passes.”

Right now, the Ethics Board is in no position to produce anything which will be known to the public as different from that finally promulgated by the Town Board.

This page is open to Mr. Conway, or any member of the Ethics Board to make any case they want to.

Where are we being "taken" with the Poop Solution?

We understand that discussions and negotiations are currently going on with reference to the solution to be implemented to solve the Poop in the Hudson problem for East Greenbush.  It is clear that the problem was created in the first place because of the placement of political power interests above the interests of the Community.  That being the case, it is hard to conceive of a solution to the problem being developed without those political power interests being in play.  And the less the Community knows about what is going on, the more mischief is possible.  Remember that East Greenbush got illegal interfund transfers, $2.5 million in debt and Junk Bond ratings directly from playing around with the Poop over 13 years. 

With these issues in mind, here's a comment by Dwight Jenkins which deserves to be a Post on the matter.  And here's the link to the Planning Board Minutes to which he refers:

http://www.eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/65-planning-board-minutes

"After a rather lengthy delay the Planning Board Minutes are updated on the Town Document Download site. Interestingly, the 5/23/12 minutes reflect a cover-our-ass conversation initiated by the Chair of the Board in which he asked about our Consent Order problem. What we heard was that it is a complex problem, very expensive to repair, we're not the only town dumping sewage, and that we haven't been ignoring the problem. What we didn't hear was a reason for the transfer of sewer funds to the general fund, when we could have and should have used those sewer fund surpluses to address the problem. Of course, we also got more than $6 million dollars in bonding from the County Water and Sewer authority back in 2008 to fix the problem, but we haven't used much of that for anything. It sits there while we pay about seventyfive thousand dollars a month in debt service for unfinished projects that would fix the problem. Look how quickly we spent the $6 million or so bond for water repairs: we banged out infrastructure updates and new water tanks in no time. That was a job well done. As for the sewer? No, this smells like a fight over power, influence, and money, hence the delays, hence the unacted upon consent orders, hence the State is finally pissed enough to jack up the fines to a level where they hurt, hence a connected lawyer got a nice payday to lower those fines somewhat,hence we got a bullshit answer on 5/23/12 in response to a staged question. Go read it for yourself if you don't believe me. Yes, we have problems with aging pipes and rainstorms. NO SHIT! That's what the sewer surplus and the hefty bond were to have fixed by now!"

Dwight Jenkins

Unethics Code

By Ray Mooney

Lately, when I write about our town, I am frequently frustrated and often angry. I am this way because I see what is best for our town being trampled by the tyranny of a majority that so often fails to put their duty before their personal interests. I have written this article full of that frustration.

 

I am also upset and embarrassed for the five hard working members of our Ethics Board. I attended many of their meetings. I watched and listened to each of them put forward an ethics code that actually made sense; that would have been good for our town. And with the tyranny of the majority of O’Brien, Mangold and Malone I see all that good, hard work being flushed down the toilet of selfish personal interests.

The personal and preferred version of an unethics code has finally been made by public by the Town Board majority of Ginny O’Brien, Sue Mangold and Phil Malone. I refuse, as a matter of principle, to label what O’Brien, Mangold and Malone have created an ethics code – because it is not.

After more than a year’s hard work and patience the Ethics Board’s version of their recommended ethics code has been sent to the trash bin.

Financial disclosure and nepotism in hiring Town Board member’s relatives, no surprise, got banished to that very same trash bin.

Sue Mangold needed to be relieved of any responsibility to make public her financial interests in her multiple family businesses that benefit directly from Town Board resolutions. She got that.

Ginny O’Brien and Phil Malone needed to be relieved of any limitations on putting their immediate family members in taxpayer’s wallets and purses through nepotism appointments. They got that.

There is a sham public hearing on the unethics code on June 20 at 6:30 PM. The public will have 30 whole minutes to ask questions and make comments on an important law that the majority of O’Brien, Mangold and Malone has screwed the Ethics Board royally on and screwed the public around on for more than a year.

Public hearings, in this town anyway, are as much of a public farce as this unethics code is. The decisions are already made. Board Majority Leader O’Brien and her two cronies are going to do exactly what they want regardless of what is best for the town and for the town’s citizens and regardless of anything asked or commented on at the public hearing. Those are harsh comments. But how can Majority Leader O’Brien call something a public “hearing” when we, the public, are not actually heard? How else can scrapping the ethics code recommended by the Ethics Board possibly be explained?

The October 13, 2010 Resolution 161-2010 that created the Ethics Board required, as a matter of a law that the Ethics Board recommend an ethics code to the Town Board. The Ethics Board did exactly that. That same resolution requires that the Ethics Board’s recommended ethics code amendments include financial disclosure provisions. Ginny O’Brien voted in favor of Resolution 161-2010 and it was passed unanimously.

As they so often do the Town Board majority said to hell with the inconveniences of law.  So, the Town Attorney, in what he has already described as a conflict of interest, wrote the unethics code we now have before us. In a further display of complete arrogance for the law the majority, led by Ginny O’Brien, dropped any requirements that the ethics code include the financial disclosure provisions required by Resolution 161 – 2010. How does that work anyway Ms. O’Brien? Vote for something into law, make yourself look good politically and then pretend the whole thing never happened so you can do what you want? Is it kind of like a speeding ticket if you have the right political connections? Is it kind of like sticking your hands in taxpayer’s wallets and purses for a job if you have the right political connections?  Can ordinary citizens and taxpayers pick and choose what laws they will follow and what laws they will ignore without any fear of consequence like you do so often?

So, the Town of East Greenbush will have, very soon, what should forever be known as an unethics code.

Report on the “Special Town Board Meeting”

By Ray Mooney and Don Johnson

Taxpayers got mugged again yesterday afternoon.

In the face of junk bond ratings, no financial turnaround plan, a non functioning CFAC, our lack of money to properly upgrade the waste treatment plant, our inability to legally pay back our inter fund borrowing, our inability to account for the savings associated with blowing $500,000 of taxpayer’s money, our deceiving taxpayers with paying fines and all the rest of the mess OBrien, Mangold and Malone pretend is governing, we added two new and additional patronage and nepotism jobs to town payroll yesterday.

There is not a taxpayer in our town, who, faced with similar family or personal financial problems, would do what OBrien, Mangold and Malone are doing to us and to our town.

 There is not a business, in our town or anywhere else, that would make the moves that OBrien, Mangold and Malone keep making. In the private sector business world these three individuals would be fired for incompetence and malfeasance.

 Special Meetings, as responsible taxpayers have come to learn, usually means the Town Board majority wants to slip something by citizens and keep things as under the radar as possible.

 This was certainly true for yesterday afternoon’s meeting.

 Yesterday afternoon’s Special Meeting was for OBrien, Mangold and Malone to make two (2) new and additional patronage and nepotism appointments to the DPW in the Highway Department.

There was no public comment portion of the meeting and no opportunity to ask questions. Ray had submitted an e-mail note to the Town Board earlier this week but that e-mail, and its list of questions, went unanswered. There was no indication that the CFAC had provided any input to the Board in making this decision. There was no indication that the staffing, work requirements and work load of the DPW staff was analyzed in any business-like way.

 Voters are left to wonder why these two new and additional patronage and nepotism appointments were left off of last week’s full Town Board meeting, but if you are thinking that deceiving taxpayers and avoiding having to answer obvious questions is a factor you are very probably correct.

 Supervisor Langley, in his legal role as the town’s Chief Financial Officer, spoke to our town’s overall poor financial condition and our debt. He voted against the resolution to add two additional patronage and nepotism appointments. Thank you, Mr. Supervisor.

Board Member Matters spoke to our illegal status in re-paying back inter fund borrowing and our inability to meet the legal requirements of last year’s early retirement resolution that cost taxpayers a cool $500,000. We cannot account for the legally required savings from that expenditure of taxpayer money and by constantly adding staff we are blowing any possibility of ever meeting the legally required savings requirements. Board Member Matters voted against the two additional patronage and nepotism appointments.

Supervisor Langley and Mr. Matters are to be commended for thoughtfully approaching this issue.  They both made it very clear that their decisions had nothing to do with the persons involved, but with what they knew to be the financial realities facing the Town.  We’ve had no evidence of a miraculous financial turn-around. 

In his remarks supporting the hiring, Mr. Malone addressed the need to upgrade the sewer infrastructure.  He remarked that since the EPA was now involved, the fines would be getting higher.  Ms. Obrien mentioned MS-4 obligations.  We thought it strange that sewer and storm water issues would be used to support Personal Service positions in the Highway Department.  Don’t the Sewer and Water Departments have their own Personal Service Rosters?  Ms. Mangold advised that these two permanent positions would mean less seasonal hiring this Summer.  HUH???  What’s the bottom-line financial saving in that?  

Bottom line – the Board majority was unable to make a sound business and financially clear case for hiring two new permanent employees in the Highway Department.  This is the same kind of “thinking” that was behind the cool half million spent on the “retirement incentive.”  What we got out of that was the cost of the incentive, the retirement bill and the cost of some of the newly retired hired back as “consultants.”   

The last Certified Audit look at the financial position of the Town was the UHY audit for 2009.  And it wasn’t good.  We haven’t seen balance sheets for 2010 or 2011 yet.  The majority of Malone, OBrien and Mangold make no reference to necessary resources like these for their business decisions.  This is not competent municipal leadership.  No recovery plan, no knowledge of financial position, no workload analysis……Good Grief. 

POOP PERPS???

It appears from what I have been reading here and there that there are folks out there who do not know the content of the Orders on Consent we have been talking about.  I have seven .PDF files of these materials which I'd be happy to attach to a return e-mail.  If you'd like them, send me an e-mail at:       eggadfly@yahoo.com                                                           


As promised, here are the rosters of the Town Board, the Planning Board and the Town Attorney for the years related to the documented dumping of Poop in the Hudson river.  Some are saying that it has gone on for much longer.  If they've got the documentation, we'll print it.  (This list is from documents produced as a result of a FOIL to the Town.)

1999 Town Board

                Phil Gause – Supervisor

O’Brien

Poorman

Seward

McCabe

1999 Planning Board

                Claude Rounds – Chairman

                Bill Sinnott

                Linda Pollman

                Rich Benko

                Bruce Geiger

                Bill Haney

                Bill Ritz

1000 Town Attorney -  Kevin Engel

2000 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Kim Halloran

                Rick McCabe

                Richard Reilly

                Robert Seward

2000 Planning Board

                Bill Haney – Chairman

                Bruce Geiger

                Linda Pollman

                Don Panton

                Bill Ritz

                Rich Benko

                Sue Mangold

2000 Town Attorney  -    Joseph McCoy

2001 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Robert Seward

                Rick McCabe

                Kim Halloran

                Rich Reilly

2001 Planning Board

                Same as 2000

2001 Town Attorney – Joseph McCoy

2002 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Kim Halloran

                Dean Kennedy

                Rick McCabe

                Richard Reilly

2002 Planning Board

                William Haney – Chairman

                Rich Benko

                Linda Pollman

                William Ritz, Jr.

                Bruce Geiger

                Don Panton

                Sue Mangold

2002 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2003 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Kim Halloran

                Dean Kennedy

                Rick McCabe

                Richard Reilly

2003 Planning Board           

                William Haney – Chairman

                Rich Benko

                Linda Pollman

                William Ritz, Jr.

                Bruce Geiger

                Don Panton

                Sue Mangold

2003 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2004 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Phil Danaher

                Dean Kennedy

                Rick McCabe

                Richard Reilly

2004 Planning Board

                William Haney

                Rich Benko

                Linda Pollman

                Bruce Geiger

                Donald Panton

                Sue Mangold

2004 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2005 Town Board

                Robert Angelini – Supervisor

                Phil Danaher

                Dean Kennedy

                Rick McCabe

                Richard Reilly

2005 Planning Board

                William Haney – Chairman

                Rich Benko

                Linda Pollman/Kurt Bergmann

                Will Ritz, Jr.

                Bruce Geiger

                Donald Panton

                Sue Mangold

2005 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2006 Town Board

                Robert Angelini/Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Rick McCabe/Mike Cristo

                Richard Reilly

                Dean Kennedy

                Phil Danaher

2006 Planning Board

                Bill Haney – Chairman

                Donald Panton

                William Ritz

                Rich Benko

                Kurt Bergmann

                Sue Mangold

                Robert Davey

2006 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2007 Town Board

                Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Dean Kennedy

                Phil Danaher

                Mike Cristo

                Dom Indelicato

2007 Planning Board

               

                Rich Benko – Chairman

                William Haney

                William Ritz

                Kurt Bergmann

                Sue Mangold

                Donald Panton

                Robert Davey

2007 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2008 Town Board

                Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Dean Kennedy

                Phil Danaher

                Mike Cristo

                Rick Matters

2008 Planning Board

                Rich Benko – Chairman

                William Ritz

                Kurt Bergmann

                Sue Mangold

                Robert Davey

                Donald Panton

                Bill Haney

2008 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2009 Town Board

                Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Dean Kennedy

                Phil Danaher

                Mike Cristo

                Rick Matters

2009 Planning Board

                Rich Benko – Chairman

                Kurt Bergmann

                Sue Mangold

                Robert Davey

                Donald Panton

                William Ritz

                Matt Polsinello

2009 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

2010 Town Board

                Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Rick Matters

                Virginia O’Brien

                Mike Cristo (removed 2/10)

                Phil Danaher (removed 2/10)

2010 Planning Board

                Jeff Pangburn – Chairman

                Judith Condo

                Steve Millins

                Louis Polsinello

                Joyce Lapham

                Bob Seward, III

                William Ritz, III

2010 Town Attorney  -  Craig Crist (on retainer)

2011 Town Board

                Rick McCabe – Supervisor

                Phil Malone

                Sue Mangold

                Rick Matters

                Virginia O’Brien

2011 Planning Board

                Dean Kennedy – Chairman

                Robert Davey

                Donald Panton

                Matt Polsinello

                William Ritz

                Joseph Kelley

                Lewis Dubuque

2011 Town Attorney – Joseph Liccardi

WHY NOT THE BEST???

Town Board and the Lack of Ethics

April 19, 2012

By Ray Mooney

The recent history of ethics in our town may be found through the link on this blog’s first post.

The videos of the April 18 Town Board meeting may be found at:

http://youtu.be/05zXG1SLbRs    Board comments Part 1
http://youtu.be/qYCff0jQFNw    Board comments Part 2  
http://youtu.be/Mqvz3q7DgXw   Board comments  Part 3
http://youtu.be/3jVk2FX2TGU   Board comments  Part 4
http://youtu.be/hXT7vJohIl0        For comments by Jack Conway and Ray Mooney
http://youtu.be/sPqGqafmYVE    For Bonnie Lester Part 1
http://youtu.be/XjOvumu5rBo     For Bonnie Lester Part 2

(Gadfly Note:  It is VERY important for all readers to listen carefully to the comments made by Board members Mangold, OBrien and Matters on the first four clips above.  Listen carefully to the arguments and positions advanced.  We lost a few seconds of Bonnie's comments due to the necessity of changing memory cards.)

Last night the public hearing for the ethics code recommended to the Town Board by the Ethics Board was defeated by Ginny O’ Brien and Sue Mangold. Phil Malone was absent and did not vote. Rick Matters put forward the motion on the resolution (No. 54-2012) for the public hearing; Keith Langley seconded the motion.

After ten months of legal wrangling with Town Attorney Joe Liccardi the draft of the revised ethics code recommended by our Ethics Board is finally available to the public. It may be found at:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1obZ9TATyhVN7AYGt-Dgsb9n849K-9gCS-RFP3aI0bQg/edit

Rick Matters, Ginny O’Brien and Sue Mangold shared their thoughts on the ethics code. As an editorial comment we have heard Rick Matters speak before. His words last evening reflected his usual deep thoughtfulness, simple wisdom and sound, value based grounding in what is best for our town.

Town Hall was filled with members of the public for last night’s Town Board meeting. There were only a few empty seats. A number of members of the public spoke in support of the ethics code and in support of Rick Matters’ resolution for a simple public hearing. Not one member of the public spoke to support Ginny O’Brien and Sue Mangold’s opposition to the public hearing.

There were two really note worthy comments that made the evening interesting. The first goes to Tom Grant who thanked Rick Matters and told Mr. Matters and the Town Board and the public in attendance that last night was another example of why Tom was proud to have voted for Rick Matters.

But the top comment of the evening goes to Bonnie Lester. Bonnie spoke last and it was clearly a case of saving the best for last. And so, Bonnie, this article, with full credit and deep appreciation to you, borrows your question for the ages to our Town Board: “WHY NOT THE BEST?”

And so, rather than add anything to Bonnie’s simply perfect question I have decided to frame a series of additional questions to the Democratic Party majority that has chosen to block the ethics code recommended to them by their very own Ethics Board.

Ms. O’Brien and Ms. Mangold: You both spoke eloquently and at length about your own personal commitment to ethical conduct. If those words are valid why did you vote against the public hearing resolution? If your words have any real meaning shouldn’t you have backed those words up with a “yes” vote?

Ms. Mangold: You stated that you have never voted to enhance your family’s business positions in town. In just one example, at the 2012 Organizational Meeting you voted to confirm your brother as a town consultant. Didn’t that represent a conflict of interest? Do you want to revise your remarks?

Mr. Malone: How would have voted? “Yes” for the public hearing on the ethics code or “No” with your fellow Democrats? On an issue as important as an ethics code the voters of our town have a right to know and to hear your thoughts on the ethics code.

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: can you state for the record that as of this moment the Town is in full compliance with even the 1974 version of the ethics code? If you don’t know do you care to find out?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: You mentioned the size of our town as a factor is your lack of support for the recommended ethics code. How does that work? Are small town officials, in your minds exempted from behaving ethically? Is it only the glare of the media in larger cities that forces ethics on government officials? What exactly is it that makes a logical connection between the size of the town and officials responsibilities to conduct themselves to high ethical standards?

Ms. O’Brien: You expressed a concern that a decent ethics code will discourage people from running for office. What are you implying? That people run for office so they can conduct themselves in any way other than fully ethically? Further, if a good and decent ethics codes does, in fact, discourage people from running for office shouldn’t we view that as a good thing?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: Jack Conway, speaking on behalf of the entire Ethics Board, took strong exception to your characterization of the Ethics Board as not fulfilling its responsibilities to the Town Board. I was present at the September 2011 public meeting and I confirmed last night that Mr. Conway spoke factually.  Do you wish to revise your remarks?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien – both of you have to abstain occasionally on votes because your family members’ work puts you in conflict with your duties as a Town Board member. That is never true for Mr. Matters and Mr. Langley. Why shouldn’t voters view that in the context of last night votes and question your true motives?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: The main issue you addressed last night in your rejection of the recommended ethics code is the financial disclosure requirement. Can you enlighten us, through you discussions with the other Town Board members, why Supervisor Langley and Board Member Matters do not have this same concern? What is unique about you both that differentiates you? We realize that Ed Gilbert’s “What are you trying to hide?” question was indelicate. But, if there is really nothing to hide why would you be opposed to financial disclosure?  

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: You mentioned that the Ethics Board has been inflexible. Don’t we want an Ethics Board that steers clear of your political interests and stands firm on values and principles? Don’t we want an Ethics Board that will be strictly non-political?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: The Ethics Board is comprised of members each of you appointed. Ms. Mangold that means Justine Spada serves on the Ethics Board as your appointee. Are you disappointed in her work?  Ms. O’Brien: same question regarding your appointee – Jack Conway. Are you disappointed with his work on the Ethics Board? If you are why do they continue to serve? If you are not why did you reject their work and their recommendation?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: Isn’t it fair for voters to conclude that with all the research and all the work and all the brainstorming and the resources of an outside attorney paid for by tax payers that the Ethics Board knows more about an ethics code than you both do? If that’s a fair conclusion why did you reject their recommended ethics code?

Ms. Mangold and Ms. O’Brien: “WHY NOT THE BEST?”

 (If anyone wants a better copy of the Draft Code, send an e-mail to eggadfly@yahoo.com and you'll get a .pdf copy in return.)