Nepotism and Patronage in East Greenbush

Quoted below is a paragraph from an anonymous blog comment from East Greenbush Talks attacking the qualifications of a friend of mine related to his knowledge and experience in the "personnel officer" business.  I happen to know that Ray Mooney has had substantial career experience in the personnel field, and offered him an opportunity to respond. 

First the quote from the "genius" on Talks:

"Ray doesn't want to hear about the public sector. He only can relate to 
the private sector and the set of rules they follow. He obviously has no 
knowledge of hiring practices in the public sector , yet he chooses to 
target Town hiring policies ignorantly and like his blog partner 
Johnson, refuses to acknowledge their inadequacies and lack of education 
on the actual subject matter. Private sector experience is irrelevant to 
public hiring practices."

Here's Ray's response:

Don, I don't generally like to respond to cowardly nameless bloggers. But I am willing, in this case, to make an exception.

It is true that my only real exposure to public sector hiring is through what I am able to observe here in East Greenbush. What I have learned is that nepotism and patronage are pretty much the sole or single criteria for hiring. I would challenge my friends and neighbors on the Talks blog to supply facts and their names with any examples to the contrary. Please note: I am not drawing distinctions between the major political parties. I think when it comes to nepotism and patronage there is no political high ground and the best interests of the taxpayers are not being served.

Nepotism not an unknown practice in the private sector. It exists primarily in family owned and run businesses.

I do not recall the stats any more but some huge percentage of publicly held companies prohibit nepotism. Now, why exactly would that be? If nepotism was an advantage to the business; if nepotism advanced the business' goals and objectives you can bet your bottom dollar those businesses would not just allow but would encourage nepotism. But...a tremendous majority do not. There must be good or valid business reasons for that to be the case.

Patronage is only slightly different. Patronage passes taxpayer money to political cronies as a reward for support and, it has always seemed to me, to discourage dissent and criticism from within. I think patronage is kind of like "omerta" in organized crime.

In the private sector all companies have to, by law, offer employment equally to all qualified people regardless of race, age, gender, religion, national origin, and some other criteria. Companies that do business with the federal government have to take affirmative steps (called an Affirmative Action Plan or AAP) to make sure their hiring and other practices conform generally to the percentage of minorities in their business area. The Office of Federal Contractor Compliance Programs (OFCCP) audits affirmative action plans and supporting data.

Moving from a general discussion to specifics...

I think the fact that our town is in the financial condition it has been in during the recent past, is in now and, in the absence of any financial plan, will continue to be into the future is all that is needed to indicate that practices such as nepotism and patronage do not serve the best interests of the taxpayers of our town. I back up this assertion with the fact that the two most obvious nepotism appointments in our town of two town board members direct family were misrepresented to taxpayers last year and have been buried in some political never never land this year. If these appointments made good sense; if the taxpayer was seeing real benefit for her/his dollar these appointments would be something the town board was proud of and would share with the public - the very people paying for them. But, for 2012 and 2013 that was not the case.

I have heard that one potential candidate for town board has said that a primary campaign focus will be that this candidate has no family members or friends that are seeking jobs - how very telling.

Everything I wrote about diversity and leadership, or the lack thereof, in my earlier comment I stand by 100%. 

In summary - I guess nepotism and patronage were concepts that could be ignored when our town's financial performance was better. In today's financial reality and with the lack of a Town Board sponsored financial plan, nepotism and patronage do not seem to be concepts that serve the best interests of taxpayers.

Happy New Year!!!

Let the Oligarchy Rule!!!???

 

The latest attempt to get the questions and spotlight off the Town Board on any number of issues is the mantra that “we’ve elected them to make decisions so we should let them do that and quit asking questions.  Questioning is meddling and disrupts the processes of good government.”  The most vulgar expression of this position is the one from Mr. Malone when he said “we’re the majority, and what we pass, passes.”  If nothing else, that’s an invitation for more oversight.  

Well, leaving them alone to govern might work if there were a track record which could be pointed to which supported the conclusion that the bunch we’re talking about were all that trustable.  My first case in point that they’re not is the fact that they couldn’t pass an Ethics Code which had financial disclosure and controls on nepotism.  

The second cases in point I’d offer is the fact that if some of us hadn’t been asking questions, we’d still have stipends, sick leave incentive and longevity payments going to elected officials, no monitoring of scrap revenue, poop in the Hudson, ……and the list goes on.  

If there is any doubt that oversight of our “decision-making body” is profoundly necessary, citizens should read the OSC audits from 2008 and 2012.  They are litanies of what can happen when the appropriate questions are NOT asked of government officials. 

Congrats Jack!!

Today's TU has a follow-up by Alysia Santo on what has been going on in East Greenbush government and the recently released OSC audit.  Read it here:

http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Town-facing-fiscal-crisis-4055391.php#ixzz2CrTeK5v0

Also, here's Jack Conway's letter of resignation from the Ethics Board which was referenced in the TU article:

                                                                                                October 26, 2012

Members of the Town Board of the Town of East Greenbush:

This letter is my resignation from the Town of East Greenbush’s Board of Ethics.  I appreciate the opportunity to have served on this board but I can no longer continue in this capacity.  It has been more than two years since I was appointed and more than sixteen months since the Board of Ethics recommended a new Code of Ethics but there is still no new Code in place and the Town Board now seems uninterested in pushing the matter to a reasonable conclusion.  I realize there is pressing town business but there has been ample time to address the question of ethics which is clearly not a priority for this board.

            The Board of Ethics was empowered and I was appointed in October 2010.  By January 2011 we had a full board that immediately set to the task of producing a new Code of Ethics. The local law that established the original Code was passed in 1974 but a Board of Ethics was not constituted until 2010.  Meeting twice monthly in order to expedite what we considered to be an urgent matter, the Board of Ethics submitted a draft of a new Code to the Town Board in June 2011.  This draft was the result of careful study of other Codes and a series of rigorous deliberations by the five members of the Board of Ethics in public meetings that included valuable and substantive input from members of the public.  We felt, and I still feel, that the draft produced by the Board of Ethics offered a guide for ethical conduct of which residents of the town could be proud.  Critical aspects of this draft were rejected by the Town Board.

            The primary purpose of a Code of Ethics is to ensure the public that every decision made by its municipal officials is made in the public interest and not for the benefit of an individual, family, private business, political party or other faction.  Above all else, it is supposed to eliminate both the appearance and reality of conflicts of interest.  The requirement for annual financial disclosure, strongly recommended by the Board of Ethics, was eliminated by the majority on the Town Board, an act that seriously undermined the Code’s ability to protect the public interest and monitor potential conflicts of interest.  More distressingly, the elimination of financial disclosure was done for the convenience of sitting members of the Town Board who chose to place their own interest above that of town residents.  The Town Board also objected to provisions that would govern the ability of employees to appear before the town after they leave municipal service, and certain provisions in the Nepotism section that affected the hiring of relatives of members of the Town Board.  Taken together, these changes transformed a draft Code that would protect the public interest into a guide for the kind of insider politics that a Code of Ethics is expected to prohibit.  In good conscience I cannot endorse or condone this approach.

           

There is a fundamental conflict of interest in having the Town Board write the Code of Ethics that is supposed to regulate the conduct of its own members.  The Association of Towns has published a series of suggestions for increasing the independence of municipal boards of ethics and I would encourage the town to adopt these.  They include passing a local law removing the requirement that one member of the Board of Ethics must be a municipal official, the establishment of a three-person independent panel that would select the members of the Board of Ethics, and the acceptance by the Town Board of the Code proposed by the Board of Ethics pending the opinion of the Town Attorney that all of its provision are legal and do not contradict provisions of State or local law.  Such an approach would assure the public that its interests are protected and will not be subverted for partisan political advantage.

            I would like to thank Ginny O’Brien for appointing me to this board.  It was an honor and a privilege to serve with Jim Breig, Justine Spada, Joseph Slater and Dave Youmans.  Each of them has done a rigorous, professional job and continues to serve with distinction.  When you decide on my replacement, I will work with that person in any way that might help get them up to speed.  Every town needs a strong commitment to ensure the ethical conduct of elected and appointed municipal officials and I will continue to advocate for such a commitment here in East Greenbush.

                                                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                                                John J. Conway, Ph.D

Good way for the Gadfly to get back at it!  Comments folks??

The Gadfly is taking a temporary Vacation.

For well researched perspectives on East Greenbush "goings-on" follow this link to an old friend:

http://dwightjen2.wordpress.com/

Lipstick on a Pig?

Last Wednesday night the Town Board passed a Resolution (140-2012) “Authorization to Develop a Strategic Communications Plan."  The purposes are to “explore media options to promote our quality of life and encourage businesses and families to take root in our Town;” and “to promote the positive aspects of the Town of East Greenbush to aid growth in the Town, and not only maintain our quality of life but also to improve it for all residents;” and “to develop a strategic communications and marketing campaign to promote the progress being made in East Greenbush and all we have to offer.”

The original attached appropriation was $20,000.  Ms. Mangold moved (and it was approved) to reduce the appropriation to $10,000.

Let me suggest an alternative approach.  It won’t cost a dime.  It will save a hell of a lot of money.  It will create a governance atmosphere which will attract the positive attention from media outlets across the region.  And it will stabilize and even reduce taxes.  Here are some things which can be done right away – the fact is they are “late.”

1)      Develop, implement and enforce the Financial Recovery Plan which OSC called for in the audit report issued in 2008.  This is the report which disclosed the inter-fund borrowing and the $2.5 million debt which led to the “junk” bond rating for the Town.  These conditions were “self-inflicted,” and they will only be cured by “self-discipline” by those in charge of spending tax money.

2)      Institute the savings required by the early retirement incentive on which the Town spent $500,000.

3)      Do Town hiring and employment pursuant to a Town-wide work-load analysis.  Now THIS is something worthy of some spending on a professional consultant.  It would remove the “family and friends” considerations.  Personal Service expenditures are by far the largest in any government and business operation.  And these expenses have "tails" which never end.  They extend beyond the end of employment.  East Greenbush has a massive hemorrhage here, and it will continue to increase.  

4)      Stop Patronage and Nepotism hiring.

5)      Develop a “business sensible” and economical solution to the wastewater treatment problem.  This means disclosure to and “ownership” by the stakeholders – the taxpayers.  This process must not be seen as a “feeding frenzy” of the locals looking for lucrative contracts, or a power grab by one party or another. 

6)      Pass a strong Ethics Code.  One that includes financial disclosure and eliminates the “wiggle room” accorded to the connected.  Statesmanlike behavior on this issue, rather than the “weasel work” done on the original draft of the Ethics Board would go far in establishing the credibility of the Board. 

7)      Audit Bruen and bring the financial operation under the direct control of the Town’s comptroller’s office pursuant to an “ancient” OSC recommendation.  This no-bid and single source contract has NEVER been audited in the life of the relationship.

I’m sure there are additional initiatives for the list.  Feel free to add them. 

The best marketing the Town can do for itself is to practice good open, transparent and accountable government.  Until that happens and becomes evident to citizens, all the campaigns in the world won’t amount to a hill of beans.  It will be just like lipstick on a pig. 

      

Court Clerk ex nihilo  (Court Clerk "out of nothing")

From: Dwightjen2@aol.com
Date: September 8, 2012 2:26:42 PM EDT
To: "lkennedy@eastgreenbush.org" <lkennedy@eastgreenbush.org>
Cc: "klangley@eastgreenbush.org" <klangley@eastgreenbush.org>

Subject: Resolution 95-2012 dated 6/20/12: for distribution to all Town Board Members/Town Attorney

Having FOILed for documents supporting the subject resolution and there being none, as notified by Asst. Town Clerk Kim Carlock; having reviewed the 2012 Organizational Meeting minutes and taking note of the court clerk positions appointed; having reviewed the standard work day assignments for certain town employees as denoted in Resolution 92-2012 of the same evening and noting that all three court clerks as indicated in the Organizational Meeting minutes were still employed in their original positions at the date and time of the Board Meeting and Resolution in question; having reviewed the Town Directory yesterday and noted that all three court clerks are still in the positions appointed for them at the 2012 Organizational Meeting; having reviewed the Town Board meeting minutes for the entire year and seeing no mention of or reference to an opening in the Court Clerk ranks; having noted that a budget transfer was required for this 4th Clerk, which would be unnecessary if there had indeed been a vacancy, I hereby conclude  that Resolution 95-2012 was a fabrication foisted upon the people of East Greenbush and expect that you will negate Resolution 95-2012 and make void its result: the hiring of a 4th Court Clerk for a vacancy which in fact did not exist, and that you will make this correction the subject of a separate resolution at a future Town Board meeting. Please note that this notification is my initial attempt at bringing the problem to your attention and seeking reasonable modification of Resolution 95-2012. There will be further attempts if necessary.

Sincerely,

Dwight Jenkins
E. Greenbush NY




 Resolution 95-2012 may be found in the Minutes for 6/20/2012 at the following link:

 http://www.eastgreenbush.org/downloads/cat_view/49-town-board-minutes