Jim Breig Resigns???

I just heard that Jim Breig, the East Greenbush Town Comptroller, has resigned.  If this is true, and I hope it is not, we have lost the last "raft of sanity in a sea of lunacy."  (To quote a friend of mine on the matter.)  This is a real tragedy for the Town.  Jim did his best to de-politicize that job and bring financial competence to that office.  I fear that the Town Comptroller's position will again be politicized.  Just in time for the Sewer contracting. 

Rick Matters' Advertiser Article

When I ran for a seat on the town board back in 2007, I took exception to the condition of commercial property along Columbia Turnpike. As we know, it has not lived up to its potential over the last fifteen years or so due, in no small part, to the shift in developer-interest to the Troy Road commercial strip north of  Couse Corners. I was and remain adamant about the town board taking meaningful, proactive action that would improve the appearance of commercial property in town. The good news is that East Greenbush still remains poised to realize its full potential. Indeed, all that is necessary to put a new face on East Greenbush is a spark to create the initial conditions that will lead to newly developed property as well as the redevelopment of existing property.

Last fall, I proposed to my town-board colleagues an opportunity that, if acted upon, would markedly improve the aesthetic quality of existing and newly developed commercial property in East Greenbush:the establishment of design standards and guidelines for commercial property as part of the town’s zoning law. Such standards and guidelines would address the architecture and configuration of buildings, their orientation on a site relative to street frontage, as well as site-related features such as pedestrian access, parking, signage, and landscaping (keep the “green” in Greenbush). Setting “standards” would ensure that the town would realize a minimum level of visual uniformity to new or rehabilitated

development, while “guidelines” would provide appropriate flexibility to developers so that commercial properties achieve varying degrees of distinction and uniqueness.  

 We’ve all driven around the capital region, and noticed the appeal of other commercial corridors in contrast to those in our own town. A large factor contributing to this contrast is that those communities have taken the steps to establish design standards and guidelines for commercial-property development. Such standards and guidelines have benefitted those communities, and they can benefit ours as well. It’s not that developers aren’t concerned about creating quality development; it simply means that municipalities have to take the lead in establishing a blue print for such development so that developers have direction. 

As a reward to owners of commercial property who would be subject to such standards and guidelines, it may be possible to provide for a limited tax exemption to partially offset their higher compliance costs. Doing so would create a win -win condition for residents and commercial property owners alike: residents enjoy enhanced storefronts in their town, while developers realize a fair incentive to invest in the town. In addition, once such standards take hold among properties in the town, the cumulative effect becomes an asset within the town, drawing still other developers to develop other property based upon the investment of prior developers.  Again, you can see this effect in other commercial areas in the capital region; East Greenbush can be among them as well.

Now, more than ever, is the time to set the stage for a new face on East Greenbush. In the near future, it is likely that many of the physically and functionally obsolete commercial properties along Columbia Turnpike will be overhauled by their owners. When it does occur, East Greenbush can reap all the benefits by simply planning its direction.  Let’s make it happen!

 As always, feel free to contact me with comments and/or questions. I can be reached during the evening at 479-7186 or via e-mail at rkmjr@verizon.net.

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/