Nole contract extension...odd indeed!

According to the editorial in today’s Observer Dispatch, OUR VIEW: New Hartford school board off base:

The decision came in a particularly odd way last week when one board member was rousted from her sick bed in order to secure a fourth “yes” vote, which proved the deciding factor.

There is obviously more to the story than what the school board wants the public to know!

Nole's contracts

Shortly after each of Nole's contracts and amendments were signed, we FOILed the documents. The process for Nole’s contract to be extended is spelled out in each of the contracts with a slight modification of contract extension dates in the 2010 amendment.

According to the first two contracts signed between the NHCS and Nole dated August 13, 2008 and January 19, 2010:

(b) No later than December, 2010 (changed to December 31, 2013 in the 2010 amendment), the Superintendent shall notify the Board, in writing of his desire to remain in the position of Superintendent for an additional year beyond the remainder of the Agreement. Thereafter, within thirty (30) days of such notice, the Board shall meet, in an executive session, to determine whether it is inclined to accept the Superintendent's offer to remain in the position of Superintendent for an additional year beyond the term of the Agreement. The President of the Board shall thereafter, inform the Superintendent of the Board's informal determination. The Superintendent shall have the option to request that the matter of the extension for an additional year beyond the term of the Agreement under this provision be placed on the Board's action portion of the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board, at which time the Board may take such action as it deems appropriate. If either party fails to exercise their option to extend the Agreement on or before February 28, 2011 (amendment changed date to Feb. 28 2014), the Agreement will expire on its normal expiration date.

Additionally, according to the both contracts Section 3 (c):

(c) Any extension of the term of the Superintendent's employment shall be in the form of an amendment to this Agreement; shall be upon the same terms and conditions as herein set forth, unless otherwise agreed upon, in writing, by the parties; and it shall not be considered that the Board and the Superintendent have entered into the new Agreement, unless expressly stated, in writing, and signed by both parties thereto.

On January, 7, 2010, the amendment that was signed between NHCS and Nole changed the dates for Nole to notify the board of his desire for an extension to December 31, 2013 and the date for both parties to act on the extension to February 28, 2014 as noted in red print above.

Did the NHCS Board and Superintendent Nole comply with all the dates in his contract?

We would have to FOIL the school for a copy of any letter sent by Nole to the school board asking for an extension of his contract to 2016, if one exists. However, we wouldn't receive an answer until sometime in April because the school has a standard FOIL reply:

Consistent with Section 89 of the New York Public Officers Law, the District hereby acknowledges receipt of that request. Access to the requested records will be determined in accordance with this section of the law and the determination will be made within 20 business days. If we are unable to make that determination within that time, you will be notified of the same and of the date by which the request will be granted in whole or in part.

Of course, that reply is not consistent with Section 89 of the NY Public Officers Law, but the school doesn’t seem to care.

We aren’t going to wait twenty (20) days to see if a letter exists, so instead… for argument’s sake, let’s suppose that Mr. Nole sent a letter to the NHCS Board on the last possible date his contract allowed, December 31, 2013.

According to his contract, the school board would have had to meet in executive session to discuss Nole’s request for an extension within thirty (30) days and the school board president would then notify Nole of their decision.

After December 31, 2013, the next school board meeting was on January 14, 2014 and there was no other meeting until February 4, 2014. The February meeting would have been beyond the thirty (30) allowed by Nole’s contract so the board would have had to call an executive session to discuss the extension at the January 14, 2014 school board meeting or they would have needed to call a special meeting. There was no special meeting called.

For argument's sake, let’s suppose that the Board President, Ms. Luker, did in fact call an executive session to discuss Nole’s contract extension at the January 14, 2014 meeting. According to the contract, Nole had the option to place the extension on the Board's action portion of the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board which would have been February 4, 2014.

No such item appeared on the agenda for the meeting of February 4, 2014, nor was there any public discussion of the contract extension at that meeting. Why not? If Nole actually sent a letter requesting the extension, why wouldn’t he put it on the agenda as an action item as soon as possible after the executive session was held instead of waiting until three (3) days before the “drop-dead” date of February 28, 2014 in his contract?

What is really going on here? Is there disagreement between Nole and the school board? Was Nole hoping to get a more lucrative contract and when that failed, he realized he was up against a deadline and acquiesced at the last minute hoping an additional year would give him more time to negotiate for what he wants?

Remember, we used December 31, 2013 as the possible date of his letter to the board, but what if he wrote a letter even before that date or what if he failed to even send a letter to the board. That would make it even more intriguing as to what is going on.

Bottom line...

We can go on and on and speculate about what was being done behind closed doors. However, two board member terms expire this year. Get out and vote!

Better yet, go to the school and get a copy of the petition needed to run for a spot on the school board. You only need thirty (30) signatures. Board member Flemma could use a little backup; he is the only one willing to speak out against the chicanery going on at the New Hartford Central School Board table.

Seats open on the New Hartford School Board

Nole’s contracts and amendment:

Nole contract 2008-2011

Nole contract 2010-2012

Nole contract amendment 2012-2015

Nole's contract extended until 2016 after hour long executive session...

The New Hartford Central School Board held a meeting last night, February 25, 2014. On the agenda was more discussion of Common Core, but the most interesting part of the meeting was after the Executive Session to discuss “item 8 E on the agenda”.

Item 8 E is Resolution to Amend Agreement and extend Bob Nole’s contract for an additional year through June 20, 2016 instead of June 20, 2015. The executive session lasted over an hour. When the public was called back in, they immediately went to a vote. However, during the discussion portion of the vote, board member Ed Flemma asked the board to state the reasons why the contract needed to be extended at this time.

Silence…dead silence from the other members of the board. Then, after a few words back and forth with Mr. Flemma, some of the board members finally chirped in with what appeared to be quite disingenuous reasons.

Final Vote 4 ayes (Mr. Stephens; Ms. Luker; Ms. Philipson and Ms. Soggs, who came in from her sick bed at the last minute just to vote "aye" so the resolution would pass) and 3 nays (Mr. Flemma; Mr. Jadhon and Mr. Piotrowski). Mr. Nole’s contract will be extended until June 20, 2016.

What are the real reasons for an early extension of Mr. Nole's contract? Why would a board member come in at the tail end of a board meeting as sick as Ms. Soggs obviously was judging from her appearance just to make sure that Mr. Nole's contract was extended until 2016? One can only guess!   One thing is for sure…this board continues to try to keep the public out of the process by holding executive sessions and then immediately calling for a vote without any further discussion in the public. That in itself implies that there is more to the story than was told to the public.

The resolution that was included in the agenda (Item 8 E) can be viewed by clicking here.

The actual amendment to Mr. Nole’s contract can be viewed by clicking here.

We will have the entire school board meeting on our YouTube channel later this evening; for now here is the "after the executive session" discussion regarding the extension of Mr. Nole’s contract.



Reminder: Two board seats will be up for grabs this May.

Read any emails from Concerned Citizens lately, Supervisor Tyksinski?

We sent enough of them to the town board and the town attorney regarding the town’s assessment database…the database containing the information that everyone’s tax bills are based on.

An article in today’s Observer Dispatch, Street lighting charges surge in New Hartford district, this time focused on errors in the Town of New Hartford lighting districts.

Previous articles have already been written in the Observer Dispatch regarding the problems in the sewer districts. Non-profits are exempt from operation and maintenance charges for all districts; however, the town has been taxing non-profits for these expenses.

All the problems in the assessment database are symptomatic of a lack of database knowledge and a lack of knowledge of how the information in the database is used to create tax bills. Neither the previous assessor nor the town board understands just how the assessment database works and what is needed to maintain the integrity of a database. Yet, your tax bill is created using the information contained in the Town of New Hartford assessment database. Everyone has heard the phrase “garbage in, garbage out”. It definitely applies in this case.

The town has been improperly reporting the expenses for all sewer and lighting districts for many years. That affects not only not-for-profits, but everyone in a sewer or lighting district because some people have been paying more than their share of district charges and others have paid less or none at all.

According to the OD article:

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said he wasn’t unaware of any issues or changes. “Right now, we don’t know what it is,” he said. “Darlene (Abbattecola, town assessor) does not know what occurred and why it occurred, but we’re working on it.”

We are amazed that Supervisor Tyksinski would make such a statement considering the fact that we have been sending memos to the town board since last February detailing the problems with the sewer and lighting district taxes.   

What happened is that after discovering that we were right regarding the sewer district errors Supervisor Tyksinski actually sent the correct information to the county for all districts this year including the lighting districts. Therefore, the program used to run the tax bills did what it was supposed to do…exempted not-for-profits from paying lighting district charges. Unfortunately, an unintended consequence was that the by exempting the non-profits, a heavier tax burden had to be placed on properties that are not exempt in order for the town to collect all the budgeted money for the lighting districts!

The program used by the county to run the town tax bills requires two expense figures for each district; operation and maintenance and capital expense. The town has only been giving the county one figure and the program has ‘assumed’ it to be a capital expense rather than an operation/maintenance charge.  Therefore, non-profits were sent tax bills for district charges!

While it may have been unintentional on the part of the town, it was foreseen and could have been properly addressed if the town board took our July 2013 email seriously. But as usual, they refuse to include us in discussions. Now, according to the resolution passed at the last town board meeting, they have hired an attorney that will cost up to $5,000 to advise them regarding the database problems.

Here is our July memo that addresses several issues including the lighting districts. Included at the end of the memo is a list of non-profits that have been erroneously charged lighting district taxes prior to this year.

These lighting district and sewer district charges are just the tip of the iceberg. All sewer district users have been overtaxed because of the failure of the town to correct deficiencies in the database even after we repeatedly sent emails asking for the corrections.

Before paying our 2014 Town and County taxes, we sent a letter of protest to the town board regarding the sewer charges on our 2014 town tax bill. The letter pretty well covers the problems with the way sewer district charges are being levied on parcels in the Consolidated Sewer District.

Mayor, Mayor, Mayor...

As we suspected there were several documents regarding this project after all…

Today, we visited the Village offices and scanned all the documents for the public to review. They are:

• According to minutes, the plan was actually discussed at the November 20, 2013 Village Planning Board meeting. It is proposed to be 50-60 condominiums. Here are the Planning Board Minutes.

• As required by NYS Zoning Laws, the Village referred the zone amendment to Oneida County Planning. You can read the Oneida County 239 document here!

• As required by zoning, the County also prepared a response to the Village’s 239 referral giving their opinion as to the projects impact, if any. You can read the Oneida County 239 document here!

• As required by zoning, a Short Environmental Assessment form signed by Mayor Ryan on December 9, 2013. Here is the EAF form.

• A State Environmental Quality Review form was signed on November 22, 2013. That document is available here!

• Finally, here is an affidavit of mailing notices to those within 500’ of the proposed project, the addresses that received the mailing and the legal notice in the January 20, 2014 Observer Dispatch. Those documents are available here!

Remember, the Public Hearing will be held on Monday, February 10, 2014 in Butler Hall starting at 7 p.m.

These documents should have been available in the Village Clerk's office from the start. The Mayor should have told us that they were available instead of only sending two pdf documents and thinking we would go away. When will they ever learn?

Shhh!! Village of NH Public Hearing, but we can’t tell you the specifics…

...because the Village claims they don't have any paperwork for the public to review at this time!!

In the legal notices of the January 21, 2014 Observer Dispatch:

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE is hereby given that the Village of New Hartford will hold a public hearing on February 10, 2014 at 7pm at Butler Memorial Hall, 48 Genesee St., New Hartford to discuss changing the zoning at 27-35 Campion Road from M-1 (Manufacturing) to P-D (Planned Development) for the following parcels: Parcel #329.014-1-37 and parcel #329.014-1-38 from M-1 to P-D. Parcel #329.014-2-21 from B-1 (Business) to P-D Persons wishing to appear at the public hearing may do so in person or by other representative. Communication in writing may be filed with the Village before or at the public hearing.

For further information please call 732-1147.

Janet M. Durr Village Clerk OD: 1/21/2014

According to the Town of New Hartford Assessment database, 27-35 Campion Road, tax map #329.014-1-38, is owned by Talkeetna, LLC (Madden Construction) and tax map #329.014-2-21, 19 Campion Road, is owned by JMLV, LLC. The town was planning to buy 19 Campion Road during the Earle Reed administration, but the Wick's Law got in the way.

We visited the Village offices in Butler Hall on Thursday, January 30, 2014 to try to get information regarding this project so we could post prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for February 10, 2014.

Janet Durr, Village Clerk, was obviously nervous as she tried to convince us that that she had no paperwork regarding this project. She said that she was not in the office when this all came about.

We informed Ms. Durr that according to Village codes, there are specific procedures to follow for the Planned Development zoning application process. She continued to give excuse after excuse; she even asked Village Treasurer Earl Cunningham if he knew anything. He also said he was unaware of any project.

Janet Durr nervously rambled on and on...something about the village has been trying to get something on these properties for some time now. Nothing is concrete; in the early planning stages.

Why would you have a public hearing if you are only in the early planning stages.

As we returned home from visiting the Village offices, our phone was ringing. It was Janet Durr who said that the Mayor would be sending us the information he has on the project, but it wouldn't be that day because he is a businessman. No problem, we can wait a day or two.

We received the information from the Mayor the next day…two pdf files or should we say two pdf documents; each comprised of one (1) page.

One is a conceptual drawing of the site. The properties involved are the Madden Construction Site and the parcel next to it...the building where the insurance company is now located.

The site drawing is captioned:

“Campion Commons” Multi-family Concept

TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD I ONEIDA CO., NY

For Buck Construction 06 November 2013©

There is a note on the left-hand side of the document that says:

NOTES: Base mapping based on drawing entitled "Renovations of Concrete Facility for Carparelli Brothers" by C. Lewis Tomaselli. Architects. "Site Plan" Sheet EC-1, doted November 29, 1999, project number 9911.

You can view the actual pdf document here.

The second document that Mayor Ryan sent to us was a conceptual drawing of what the project might look like. You can view that drawing here.

We were stunned to only get those two documents when the Village of New Hartford Village code is so specific about what needs to be made available to the Village Board in order to change zoning to a Planned Development.

What is more disturbing is that the Village is holding a public hearing on the proposal, but apparently refuses to release any further information other than these two documents which are conceptual only!

We have to ask why? Why would the Village of New Hartford hold a public hearing for a zoning change and withhold information from the public?

The lack of information opens the Village up to a whole lot of speculation...

Buck Construction is the developer of the Village Point Apartments. Does the Village's unwillingness to give the public information relate in any way to the PILOT for those apartments? We don’t know.

According to our research, the PILOT (HUD) may be just about over. We believe that when the mortgage is paid in full, HUD no longer subsidizes the rental payments. Town Board minutes of April 7, 1982 and October 20, 1982 state that the term of that PILOT was until the mortgage was paid in full, but no more than 40 years. The agreement was adopted by the Town Board with Resolution 311 of 1982 on October 20, 1982. We found three (3) newspaper articles dated between April 10, 1982 and April 18, 1983 regarding the Village Point Apartments.

Also, if you recall, Buck Construction wanted to remodel Massoud’s on Oneida Street last Spring for what they said were “high-end” apartments. The Town Zoning Board turned down their request for a use variance on that project.

Whether or not there is any connection between the Village Point Apartments; the Buck Construction use variance request for Oneida Street that was turned down by the Town ZBA; and this Village Public Hearing is anyone’s guess. We simply do not have any concrete information.

Sadly, at this point...the public hearing required by Village codes has been set, but "mum's the word" unless Mayor Ryan decides to answer our email asking for further information!

We sent Mayor Ryan an email on Thursday, January 30, 2014 asking for further information; to date there has been no response. Hopefully, he will provide us with more information to clear up any misconceptions that might exist. If we hear anything further from the Mayor, we will post on our blog.

Meanwhile, according to today’s Observer Dispatch, there is a Village of New Hartford Planning Board meeting in Butler Hall starting at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 4, 2014. We do not know if this project will be discussed.

If you are interested in this project, either for or against, plan to attend the Planning Board meeting on February 4th and don’t forget the Public Hearing on the project to be held on Monday, February 10, 2014 starting at 7 p.m. in Butler Hall. Hopefully, the Village will decide to be more forthcoming prior or at these meetings.

One last thing, we downloaded the Village of New Hartford Code Book and ran it through our software to provide everyone with a completely searchable document.

Looking for information on Village of New Hartford Codes? The searchable Village of New Hartford Codes can be downloaded here!

Through the process of elimination…

Last week, the New Hartford Library Board of Trustees met in Butler Hall for the first meeting of 2014.

New board president, Jay Winn, started off the meeting with a discussion regarding the secret ballot vote for the election of vice president held at their December meeting.

At the December meeting, Trustee Wiatr brought forward the fact that according to the Open Meetings Law, each member’s vote must be publicly recorded; secret ballots are not allowed. That was not the first time that Trustee Wiatr objected to secret ballots; however, the previous board president was not open to listening to anything that Trustee Wiatr brought to the table.

But this time, to Mr. Winn’s credit, he actually took the time to speak to Robert Freeman of the Committee on Open Government regarding the vote and how the board could correct the record.

Mr. Freeman agreed with Trustee Wiatr…all votes must be made public to be in compliance with the Open Meetings Law. According to Mr. Freeman, the secret ballot vote taken at the December meeting could easily be corrected by asking each board member to state how they voted and then correcting the minutes of the meeting to reflect the vote of each member.

Simple enough, except that two board members still refused to say how they voted. One of the two agreed to write his vote on a piece of paper and sign the paper; however, Board President Winn let him know that his vote would still be a matter of public record in the minutes of the meeting. After further discussion, that board member blurted out how he voted.

However, the other member, John Klein, a board officer nonetheless, emphatically refused to say how he had voted. He didn’t care that the Open Meetings Law was being violated; he dug in his heels.

After much cajoling in an effort to convince Mr. Klein to just follow the law, the board president asked each of the remaining eight (8) trustees (Linda Romano is no longer on the board) to state for the record how they had voted. Knowing that the vote in December was six (6) for Ed Flemma and five (5) for Mary Du Ross as the next vice president, it quickly became quite apparent how Mr. Klein voted.

We just have to ask…what was his point? If everyone else makes their vote known, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out how the last person voted. Is it really worth the embarrassment not only to Mr. Klein, but to the library as well? This is the kind of senseless b/s that has been going on with this board for the past several years.

We have to wonder if a trustee, particularly an officer, that openly and knowingly violates a law should be allowed to continue serving on the library board?

On a positive note, we have to commend Mr. Winn for his willingness to seek the advice of Mr. Freeman and his ability to keep the board on track. We are hopeful that this will be a turning point for the New Hartford Public Library; a step in the right direction.

One other thing, the new library director is definitely a welcome addition to our library and her experience will be invaluable in leading the library to success. If you get a chance, stop in and say hello to Elina Shneyder.

Here is the video of the January 15, 2014 New Hartford Public Library meeting:

New Hartford Central School Spring Coach Appointments...

At last Tuesday’s New Hartford Central School board meeting, coach appointments were once again on the agenda.

Since his election to the board, School Board member Ed Flemma has been adamant that coaches should not be appointed “pending certification” as has been the past practice of the school board. Mr. Flemma believes that no one should be appointed until AFTER they have met the requirements set forth by the NYS Commissioner of Education.

Mr. Flemma is entirely correct. The standards to be met for coaching are clearly set forth in the Rules of the Regents and Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Title 8, Chapter II Regulations of the Commissioner.

The part of the ruling that applies in this case can be found by clicking here. To read the entire ruling, please click here.

Ultimately, the school board and school administrator (Mr. Nole) are responsible for making sure that all coaches meet the certification requirement BEFORE they are appointed. However, apparently that is not the view of some of the members of the New Hartford Board of Education and the District Superintendent, Robert Nole. This is at least the third time since Mr. Flemma was seated on the board that the names of coaches not properly certified have been brought before the NHCS Board of Education.

This time, after Mr. Flemma voiced his opinion, two votes for adoption were placed before the board…one to not approve and one to approve PENDING certification. Neither resolution had a majority vote so the vote failed and no action was taken.

How did they vote on this important issue?

Board President Kim Luker, along with board member Paul Piotrowski, voted to approve PENDING certification.

Board members Jim Stephens and Ed Flemma voted to not approve until certification was verified as being complete.

Board members Beth Soggs and Lisa Philipson abstained.


An abstention basically means that they don’t have enough information to be able to vote. How long have they been on the school board? When did they think they might look into the issue and get the information needed to make an informed decision?

This May two school board seats are up for re-election; James Stephens and Kim Luker. If you care about the decisions your school board makes regarding your children, the choice should be an easy one.

The person recommended (a teacher in NHCS) was first appointed as coach in Spring 2010. The rules specifically say that a teacher must within two (2) years from their first appointment meet all the requirements set forth by the Commissioner of Education. Therefore, this person should have met the qualification in Spring of 2012. What would make anyone believe that there was an intention to complete certification at this point?

We videotaped the school board meeting. Here is the video of the portion of the meeting where the discussion took place.

By the way, the person you can clearly hear on the video sighing and saying “My God!” is the NHCS Athletic Director Peter Alvanos. He spent the entire time of the discussion fidgeting and sighing like a spoiled brat.

Note to Mr. Alvanos…When you feel you simply must be arrogant…look around and make sure that you are not sitting so close to a video camera when it is rolling!

Just before the meeting adjourned Board Member Paul Piotrowski chose to verbally attack Mr. Flemma. While Mr. Piotrowski is entitled to his opinion, perhaps he would better serve the school district by becoming familiar with the regulations instead of voting for the "family and friends" plan.

Here is that portion of the meeting:




Here is the entire January 14, 2014 school board meeting. The beginning of the meeting was devoted to Common Core.



May 2014 is not too far away…who do you want sitting on the New Hartford School Board of Education making decisions that affect your children?

Hocus--Pocus! Abracadabra!

The $20 unit charge on the Town & County tax bill of every parcel in the Consolidated Sewer District is suddenly a user fee; that must be why the town decided to charge not-for-profits the $20 for sewers on their 2014 town tax bill.

According to an article in yesterday’s Observer Dispatch, not-for-profits are not exempt from user fees. Our research has confirmed that is absolutely correct; we agree.

While it is true that not-for-profits are not exempt from paying user fees also known as sewer rents, they are exempt from special assessments. And since to the best of our knowledge, the Town of New Hartford doesn’t have a Sewer Rent Law on the books, the sewer operation and maintenance charge cannot be considered a user charge.

The problem with assessments and special district charges has been festering for some time now. We bring inconsistencies to the town board and they consistently ignore us. But now, the Observer Dispatch is reporting on the problems with the sewer charges and three (3) not-for-profits are asking for a refund. Now might be a good time for the town board to take action!

Tyksinski is quoted in yesterday's OD article as saying:

“Not all exempts are in fact exempt from special assessments (like sewer fees),” Town Supervisor Pat Tyksinski said. “We’re not going to do anything until we figure out exactly what we’re supposed to be doing and how it’s supposed to be done and if there is a problem at all.”

Really, Supervisor Tyskinski? Do you really think that we presented that list of 88 not-for-profit parcels that are being charged sewer fees even though they are exempt from special assessments to you last February without first doing our homework. Trust us...every single parcel we listed is exempt from special assessments!

The Sewer Rent Law specifically states that sewer rents are “A scale of annual charges established and imposed… for the use of a sewer system or any part or parts thereof.” The law is very specific; the charges must be assessed to all parcels in the sewer district (several parcels are not paying the tax because of errors in the assessment database); and the charges must have a rational basis that must be delineated in the local law.

If a single family home pays $20 user fee/sewer rent and a shopping center also pays a $20 user fee/sewer rent, how could the town even be in compliance with a Sewer Rent Law even if there was one? What scale is the town basing this charge on?  That means that every parcel in the Consolidated Sewer District is being charged with no basis in law for the charge.

In a document written for the Dept. of Environmental Conservation by Bob Feller of Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC, titled Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Funding Document, he states:

User Fees

"There is no statute that authorizes user fees to support operation and maintenance costs for all types of capital improvements. The General Municipal Law Article 14-F authorizes the use of sewer rents for any municipality or municipal district that is operating a waste water system. It establishes specific bases upon which these charges can be based."

We have to ask, Supervisor Tyskinski, just how can the $20 charge that all sewers users pay each year all of a sudden (almost overnight) become a user fee absent a local law, ordinance or resolution? Or are you calling it something else? What basis in law did you use to continue to charge not-for-profits?

It's interesting to note that back in 1995 Supervisor Tyksinski was on the committee that worked on consolidating the town's sewer improvements and sewer district to form what is now known as the Consolidated Sewer District. At the time, County Comptroller Joe Timpano was the town comptroller and he was also part of the committee that worked on the consolidation!

Charging not-for-profits without the proper law in place is just one piece of the whole picture. There is more to this story..we will continue until the town board does the right thing...FIX IT!

Organizational Meeting...

The New Hartford town board held their 2014 Organizational Meeting last night, Wednesday, January 8, 2014.

Matt Bohn was appointed Deputy Supervisor and Herbert Cully was appointed Town Attorney.

The 2014 salaries for all town employees were set for 2014. You can see a copy of the approved salaries by clicking here!

A copy of the agenda for last night's meeting is available here!

A DFAFT copy of the organizational resolutions can be found here!

The entire meeting is available for viewing below:



Videos of town meetings are available on our YouTube channel at CCHOG.

Town Supervisor, your statements seem to be a little disingenuous…

We have been taking a little rest from blogging during the busy Christmas season, but we just had to blog about the Observer Dispatch article regarding tonight’s Public Hearing to adopt a local law giving Highway Superintendent Rick Sherman a pay raise for 2014.

According to the article Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said:

That position hasn’t realized a raise in I can’t tell you how long,” said town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski. “We thought it was time that we just made up the difference.”

Oh, come on Supervisor Tyksinski, if you really felt that way why didn’t you just give Rick Sherman the raise during the normal budget process? Clearly, Mr. Sherman included a request for a pay raise in his 2014 Budget Worksheets.

As we are sure you know Supervisor Tyksinski, Mr. Sherman became the Highway Superintendent in October 2008 after Roger Cleveland retired. At that time, the town board set his salary at $60,000.

Since 2008 other elected officials (Town Clerk, Tax Collector, and Judges) have each received 3% pay raises every year except 2010 and 2011. Yet, Rick Sherman’s salary is still $60,000 according to the 2014 Adopted Town Budget.

However, shortly after the elected officials’ salaries were posted in the legal notice for the 2014 Preliminary Budget, you now claim that it is time to make up the difference to Mr. Sherman?  That means that by town law, the only way Mr. Sherman can receive a raise for 2014 is adoption of a local law which incidentally only gives him the raise for 2014 unless you also include it in the 2015 budget.   

Please, Supervisor Tyksinski, cut the b/s!    You know very well that Mr. Sherman has never received a pay raise since he became Highway Superintendent even when other elected officials did and you had the opportunity to include Mr. Sherman’s pay increase as part of the normal budget process along with the raises you included for other officials, but you didn’t.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind telling the taxpayers in New Hartford the real reason you neglected to give Mr. Sherman a raise in the 2014 Tentative budget also known as the Supervisor's budget?  Just what happened between the adoption of the Preliminary Budget and the 2014 Adopted Budget other than your re-election?

Incidentally, while we are taking a little down time right now, we are still attending and videotaping town meetings. You can watch the videos on our YouTube Channel.

Still Waiting...Thirty-four (34) Business Days and counting....

No deposit ticket, no certification as to whether the letter on plain paper and the deposit ticket received on September 25th were true town documents...absolutely no proof of 2013 town property taxes being billed and paid on The Hampton Inn has been provided in answer to our September 12, 2013 FOIL request...

2014 Town budget discussions...

took place at the Wednesday, October 23, 2013 town board meeting.



A public hearing has been scheduled for November 6 2013.

According to a note from the Town Clerk this morning, she has yet to receive the Preliminary Budget. We will publish the 2014 Preliminary Budget as soon as it becomes available.