With all due respect to the Town Clerk...

...she did get a $5,000 raise to take on the additional duties of the tax collector position...

AND

...the following resolution allowing full-time hours for a part-time worker in the town clerk's office during tax season was unanimously adopted by the town board at the January 11, 2012 town board meeting:

Town Clerk’s Office – change in employee status

Supervisor Tyksinski explained the need for a temporary change in an existing Part-time Clerk status to allow the employee to work more than 17.5 hours weekly during the 2012 Town and County tax collection period. Councilman Reynolds introduced the following Resolution for adoption; seconded by Councilman Woodland:

(RESOLUTION NO. 14 OF 2012)
RESOLVED that, in accordance with rules and regulations of the Oneida County Personnel Department, the New Hartford Town Board does hereby approve the temporary title change for Shelby Bohling, a Part-time Clerk in the Town Clerk’s Office, to that of full-time Laborer retroactive to January 3, 2012 and which temporary title change would allow Ms. Bohling to work up to 35 hours per week during the 2012 Town and County tax collection period, after which Ms. Bohling’s title will revert to Part-time Clerk. No benefits will be offered during this temporary full-time Laborer designation.

The Town Board then voted upon roll call:

Councilman Miscione - Aye
Councilman Woodland - Aye
Councilman Backman - Aye
Councilman Reynolds - Aye
Supervisor Tyksinski - Aye.

The Resolution was declared unanimously carried and duly ADOPTED.

Ward 2 Councilman Paul Miscione had it right when he said in today's Observer Dispatch article, New duties taxing for town clerk:

Miscione said he wouldn’t be in favor of hiring another person, but instead upgrading the office’s software and infrastructure to allow residents to pay their taxes online. He cited other municipalities, such as Ilion, as examples of government already utilizing an electronic system.

The problem is that many of the procedures in New Hartford town offices are inefficient, outdated and done because..."it's the way we have always done them". That excuse wouldn't work in the private sector.

Visit offices in other towns and you will notice just how backwards we really are in many respects, not just in tax collections. A member of Concerned Citizens had to show staff in one office how to make double-sided copies using a copier that had that feature built in as an option.

And they can't blame the problem on our FOIL requests anymore...the Freedom of Information Law has been changed so that resolutions and other documents that are discussed at town meetings have to be made available IN ADVANCE OF or AT the meeting to give the public an opportunity to understand what is being discussed during the meeting.

You don't have to be a Philadelphia lawyer...

...to understand Town Law § 150.

February 8, 2012 town board meeting...Councilman Reynolds asked the town board to consider a resolution to reinstate the New Hartford Police Commission. If you recall in 2010, the town board voted to abolish said commission.

Councilman Reynolds suggested that the town board consider reinstating the five (5) member police commission to start by re-appointing three (3) of the five (5) commissioners whose terms were unexpired when the Police Commission was abolished in February 2010; the proposed appointments being David Butler, James Spellman, and Kevin Copeland.

Problem is...even if the town board were to vote in the affirmative to reinstate the Police Commission, under Town Law 150, the town board has no authority to appoint five (5) members to the New Hartford Police Commission.

Town Law Section 150 is very clear...Town Attorney Cully even explained it at the February 10, 2010 town board meeting prior to the adoption of the resolution to abolish the Police Commission. Those town board minutes noted:

According to Town Attorney Cully, Section 150 further explained that a town board which established a police department by resolution may also establish a board of police commissioners and appoint one (1) or three (3) police commissioners...

The town board minutes continue Attorney Cully's explanation of Town Law § 150 by saying:

...statute after that says the board of police commissioners can be amended to five (5) members, which was basically done in New Hartford in June 2000.

Really? What statute would that be Attorney Cully?

We have a copy of the June 2000 town board minutes. We could not find the passage referred to by Attorney Cully.

Not only that, but according to a 1997 NYS Attorney General opinion letter, the only way that a police commission created under Town Law § 150 can be expanded to five (5) members is through a local law under Home Rule.

So basically, that means that without a properly noticed Public Hearing, followed by the town board adoption of a Local Law in open meeting and the timely filing of said local law with the Dept. of State, there can only be one (1) member or three (3) members of a police commission that is created under Town Law § 150.

We checked the Town of New Hartford Code Book; we found no local law expanding the police commission to a five (5) member board. The town board NEVER had authority to appoint a five (5) member police commission in 1984 or any year thereafter. Oops!

According to Town Law § 150:

2. The town board of a town in which such a police department has been established at any time by resolution may establish a board of police commissioners for such town and appoint one or three police commissioners who shall at the time of their appointment and throughout their term of office be electors of such town, and who shall serve without compensation, and at the pleasure of the town board. If the town board shall appoint only one such police commissioner, it shall in addition designate two members of the town board to serve as members of such police commission. The town board may also by resolution designate the supervisor to serve as police commissioner, and when so designated, such supervisor shall have all the powers of and perform the duties of such board of police commissioners. When either of such boards of police commissioners shall have been established or supervisor designated as police commissioner, such board of police commissioners or police commissioner shall have and exercise all the powers relative to police matters conferred upon the town board pursuant to this article. The town board may by resolution at any time abolish such police commission or revoke the designation of such supervisor as police commissioner and thereupon the town board only shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by this article.

At the February 11, 2012 town board meeting, the town board voted two (2) against and (2) for reinstating the Police Commission and one (1) abstention from newly elected Paul Miscione. Therefore, the motion was defeated.

Councilman Miscione abstained from the vote because he was not there for the discussion in February 2010 when the police commission was abolished. He asked Attorney Cully for documentation to read and asked if the subject could be brought back to the table next month.

One other thing to note...under Town Law § 150, the Police Commission members "serve at the pleasure of the board" and they can be removed at any time if the board is dissatisfied with their performance.

Here is the discussion at the February 11, 2012 town board meeting regarding Councilman Reynold's motion to re-instate the New Hartford Police Commission:

The Next New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

will not be held tonight, Wednesday, January 25, 2012.

In fact, there will no longer be two (2) town board meetings each month, at least not for the time being.

At the January 11, 2012 town board meeting, the organizational meeting for 2012, Supervisor Tyksinski asked the town board to agree to one meeting a month. Councilman Woodland asked that the topic be revisited in March and the board adopted a resolution to that effect.

Here is the video of the town board's discussion:

Once a month meetings were tried during the last administration back in January 2007, but they found it necessary to return to twice a month meetings in September of that same year.

When is the next town board meeting? Supervisor Tyksinski said the meeting dates would be determined and then posted on the town website.

As of today, there are no 2012 meeting dates posted on the town website; however, we visited the town clerk today and found out that the next meeting will be on Wednesday, February 8, 2012.

If at first you don't succeed...

According to a story in the Observer Dispatch, Rezoning plan returns to New Hartford, a new petition to allow retail in the New Hartford Business Park was submitted by Larry Adler on January 9, 2012. The item never appeared on the January 11, 2012 town board agenda; however it was discussed that evening after Town Attorney Cully brought the request before the board.

You may remember that Attorney Cully brought a similar request to the town board on behalf of Mr. Adler last November; then, in December, he withdrew that request.

According to the OD article:

The reason the proposal was withdrawn, amended and resubmitted was to include input from the town’s comprehensive goals, Adler said.

Hmm...the town's 2007 Comprehensive Plan Update. We seem to remember that Mr. Adler was part of the Business & Economic Development Focus Group back in 2006-07 when the town's Comprehensive Plan was being updated.

We found some of the comments from that focus group to be quite interesting:

• Sprawl − “a little bit of control of the sprawl”

• More mini high tech kinds of businesses

• When you have experience in developing here, you know how to do it

• Planning Board: they’re not planners

• This becomes a mini-city if everything comes together

• Retail needs to slow down while the population catches up

• Technology Parks and Business Parks needed

• Town needs to be a leader and needs to be able to discuss issues such as the decay in the City of Utica; NH is a jewel in a rusting hulk

• NH has shown a lot of leadership in spite of itself commercially and etc.

• The retailers are going to tell you when there are enough stores

• NH competes with Utica for offices; businesses are moving out but NH isn’t prepared with a nice business park

Back then, Mr. Adler was pitching his plans to develop the acreage as a business park with a doctor's office, hotel and The Hartford.

A business park was necessary according to town officials during the Reed administration. Town taxpayers were assured that once the PILOTs were in place, the business park would flourish. Tax revenues would more than offset the $3.4 million bonding costs associated with the building of the infrastructure in the park.

The Hartford moved in their new building in 2008, the hotel is supposedly going to be open in April 2012 and the doctor's office has since moved elsewhere. No further business park development has been made public.

Now...five years after the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, Adler says in today's Observer Dispatch article:

If approved, the amendments would make the area easier to develop, he said.

Since when was it deemed to be the town board's mission to change zoning to make it easier for a developer to succeed when his initial plans don't pan out? By the way, it is our understanding that the business park zoning was already changed once to allow the hotel.

Mr. Adler is scheduled to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Monday, January 23, 2012 to ask for an area variance regarding signage for his hotel. The meeting is being held in the Library starting at 6:00 p.m.

According to the agenda:

The application of Mr. Larry Adler for New Hartford Office Group, LLC for signage at the Hampton Inn & Suites, 201 Woods Park Drive, New Hartford, New York.

Zoning in this area is Planned Development Park which allows a maximum of 40 square
feet for wall signs. Applicant is seeking two Area Variances for walls signs: east sign requiring a 99 square foot Area Variance, and northern sign requires a 49 square foot Area Variance. Tax Map #328.00037.1; Lot Size: 3.3 Acres; Zoning: Planned Development Park.

Here is the entire Business & Economic Development Focus Group section of the 2007 New Hartford Comprehensive Plan Update.

Be sure to read Strikeslip's blog for more on this story...New Hartford Development: Urban Cancer...

Here is the video of that portion of the January 11, 2011 town board meeting discussing Mr. Adler's request:

Say W-h-a-a-a-t?

According to today's Observer Dispatch, New Hartford didn’t post board openings, referring to Planning Board appointments made at the January 11, 2012 Organizational meeting.

In the Observer Dispatch article:

Town Supervisor Patrick Tyksinski said the board passed a resolution at the meeting to override the provision requiring them to publicize the vacancies. “The board opted to bypass that,” he said.

Well, we just happen to have a video copy of the discussion that took place on January 11, 2012.

The board may have opted to ignore the procedures adopted by board resolution years ago, but there clearly was no such resolution adopted on January 11th to override the provision...see for yourself.

Here is a the video of that portion of the January 11, 2012 town board meeting:

In fact, if you look closely at about 1:05:13 minutes into the above video [we have a clip of just that portion of the video below], you can see and hear Deputy Supervisor Bohn saying something and showing a paper to Supervisor Tyksinski; the paper contains the organizational resolutions that were adopted at that same meeting and that has been adopted as part of the organizational minutes for the past several years.

One of the resolutions on that yellow piece of paper reads:

In the event of vacancies on the Zoning Board of Appeals or Planning Board, the respective Board shall receive and review applications, conduct interviews, and make written recommendation to the Town Board as to the person best qualified to fill the vacancy.

After Tyksinski reads the paper that Deputy Supervisor gives to him, Tyksinski flippantly tosses it back to Bohn and continues on with the meeting.

Here is the video:

The Observer Dispatch article goes on to say:

According to the Department of State, there is no law requiring the advertisement of those positions.

There's no law...but there is a resolution passed by the town board detailing the requirements for filling the Planning and Zoning board vacancies...requirements that were not met prior to the appointments being made on January 11, 2012.

The article goes on to say:

Technically, the board had discussed filling the positions at a meeting in December, Town Attorney Herbert Cully said.

Well, technically, at the December 14, 2011 town board meeting they discussed filling vacancies on the Library Board; decisions on the Planning Board vacancies were deferred until the January 11, 2012 meeting after Councilman Backman brought up the question as to whether or not it was proper to fill vacancies prior to the expiration of the term.

Here is the video of the December 14, 2011 discussion:

Then at the December 21, 2011 town board meeting, Town Attorney Cully explained that Councilman Backman was correct in stating that the library vacancies had to be postponed until after the first of the year. A vacancy cannot be filled until after the end of a term...after the vacancy occurs, in this case the terms ended on December 31, 2011. Here is the December 21, 2011 meeting with Town Attorney Cully's explanation:

Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause New York, a nonpartisan advocacy group for affective and accountable government, is quoted in the OD story:

“It’s bad practice, especially right now when people are skeptical about their government and we’re in a time of great budget challenge,” she said. “The public needs to be assured that elected officials put the public interest first. A more open application process is always a good option.”

Hmm...

A Decision not to make a Decision

According to The Official Roberts Rule of Order website:

The phrase “abstention votes” is an oxymoron, an abstention being a refusal to vote. To abstain means to refrain from voting, and, as a consequence, there can be no such thing as an “abstention vote.”

According to the New Hartford Public Library by-laws:

8.1 The conduct of the Board’s affairs shall be in accordance with the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised when they are not inconsistent with the provisions of these bylaws.

A search on the web turned up the website of Adams Kessler, a corporate and litigation counsel to community associations throughout California, who has a whole webpage discussing abstentions according to Robert's Rule of Order.

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

No board member “refused” to say the Pledge of Allegiance.

However, according to the website cited above:

Abstention Defined.

When it comes time for directors to vote on an issue, a director [in this case trustee] may vote "yes" or "no." If a director abstains from voting, that means the director has not voted. An abstention is a non-vote, a decision not to make a decision. (Robert's Rules of Order, 10th ed., p 43.)

Negative Impact of an Abstention. An abstention may have the practical effect of a "no" vote since the motion may fail for lack of sufficient "yes" votes.

In effect, by abstaining, the motion to say the pledge was actually voted down. There were eleven (11) board members present and only two or three voted in the affirmative; not enough for a majority affirmative vote. The vote has to be recorded in the minutes as a 'nay' to saying the Pledge.

Adams Kesler continues:

When to Abstain.

Whenever a director believes he/she has a conflict of interest, the director should abstain from voting on the issue and make sure his/her abstention is noted in the minutes. (Robert's Rules, 10th ed., p 394.)

The other reason a director might abstain is that he/she believes there was insufficient information for making a decision. Otherwise, directors should cast votes on all issues put before them. Failure to do so could be deemed a breach of their fiduciary duties.

So why did the majority abstain? Conflict of interest or insufficient information in response to saying the Pledge? Or was it just more of the same rudeness and opposition that has been shown to Mr. Wiatr since he first was appointed trustee; opposition that once again backfired on this board which is made up of known professionals in the Town of New Hartford?

Board President Romano says in her Letter to the Editor in today's Observer Dispatch:

The board abstained from voting, leaving the decision in the hands of the president. An email was sent from the president to the entire board within one hour of the meeting clarifying the abstentions and stating that all future meetings would indeed start with the Pledge of Allegiance.

According to Roberts Rule of Order, unless the by-laws specifically give the power to the president to override a board vote, the "nay" vote stands. The New Hartford Public Library by-laws have no such wording. What makes Ms. Romano think that she has the power to override the vote?

The library board can make up any excuse they want for their misbehavior. It was clearly in an effort to go against anything that Trustee Wiatr brings to the table. Bottom line...there is no excuse for what took place at the December 14, 2011 library board meeting. For a library director to state that saying the Pledge "is a waste of time" and a trustee to state "it is only for show" is shameful no matter how you look at it.

Library trustees are appointed by the town board not only to carry out the goals of the library but also to represent the residents of New Hartford who fund this library with their tax dollars; we would venture to guess that the majority of New Hartford taxpayers do not feel that the Pledge is "a waste of time".

Sitting in the audience on December 14, 2011, it appeared that the entire "abstention scenario" was "choreographed" by some members of the library board prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, even though the Library Trustees should have waltzed through the discussion on saying the Pledge; the majority of the library trustees chose to do the hokey-pokey!

The next scheduled meeting of the trustees will be held at 7 p.m. Wednesday, January 18, 2012, at Butler Hall.

First Town Board Meeting of 2012...

will be held this Wednesday, January 11, 2012 starting at 7:00 p.m. in Butler Hall. Agenda is now online!

While we are on the subject of town board meetings, Strikeslip wrote a blog a few days ago, A New Law for a New Year? regarding an update to the Open Meetings Law that was awaiting the signature of Governor Cuomo.

On January 4, 2012, Governor Cuomo signed the legislation mentioned in Strikeslip's blog, [A00072B] and [S 3255-B], into law that will require records, resolutions, laws, or all matters to be discussed at an open meeting by a public body [town board, library board, Oneida County Industrial Development, etc.] to be made available for review by the public prior to or at the meeting.

According to the Democrat and Chronicle, a Gannett Company:

The documents have to be posted online when possible if the agency's website is updated regularly and it uses a high-speed Internet connection.

There are some exceptions to making records available, such as documents that are submitted late or that would be too expensive or onerous to copy. An example would be a 1,000-page report.

Another online article at The Daily Ossining, state Assemblywoman Amy Paulin (D-Scarsdale), a sponsor of the bill, said:

“I think it will enhance public participation and transparency which is extremely important, to make the public confident in their government and to make the governments better.”

According to the legislation:

This legislation will actually decrease the burdens imposed on agencies. Making certain records available OR the agency website, or in hard copy at or prior to the meeting, greatly reduces the likelihood of FOIL requests for the records after the meeting is held. Additionally, posting the record on the agency's website imposes no cost to the agency, and eliminates the majority of administrative tasks necessary to process a FOIL request. Such proactive disclosure has been strongly recommended by the Committee on Open Government and comports with the movement toward transparency
in government taking place at the state and federal levels.

The law takes effect on February 3, 2012.

Stormwater Drainage Districts...

On page 6 of the August 6, 2003 approved town board minutes

...On July 30, 2003 Petitions for the establishment of a special water district and stormwater drainage district within the Whitetail Meadows development had been received in the Town Clerk’s Office and Highway Superintendent Cleveland has now received the relevant metes and bounds description for these special districts.

According to the August 20, 2003 Approved Town Board minutes:

...WHEREAS, the improvements proposed consist of the installation of storm sewers, detention facilities, catch basins, appurtenances, and a connection point(s) for discharge to the existing New Hartford storm water transportation system within the Town of New Hartford to which the new storm water facilities shall be connected and which transport storm water to the Sauquoit Creek; and

WHEREAS, the facilities proposed to be constructed in the said proposed Storm Water Drainage District as shown on the said July 28, 2003 Plat Map, sheets "1" and "2", as revised accompanying the Petition are to be constructed at the sole expense of the Petitioner; [emphasis added by blogger]

Subsequent to that Town Board Meeting, as required by Town Law, on September 3, 2003, the town board held a Public Hearing to give residents an opportunity to speak for or against and a negative declaration [SEQRA] was presented to the town board by the Town Clerk. No one from the public spoke during the hearing; however, Councilman Backman had some questions for then Highway Superintendent Cleveland:

[from the Sept. 3, 2003 approved town board minutes] Addressing his remarks to the Highway Superintendent, Councilman Backman asked about work or deficiencies of the development. Highway Superintendent Cleveland replied there is a bond and some work that the developer needs to do and that will probably be done within a month. Councilman Backman would like the deficiencies taken care of before the district is created, not after. Attorney Rossi stated that the Town Board can require the developer’s attorney to provide written confirmation that the deficiencies have been taken care of or provide sufficient security for the Town to perform the work. Attorney Rossi had talked with Attorney Maya, noting that the Town can withhold accepting the roads as town highways until Attorney Rossi "…is sure that Roger (Highway Superintendent) is sure that everything’s been done according to the approved plans (and Town Code)."

At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, a resolution was proposed; the resolution outlined each step that had been taken in keeping with Town Law regarding the creation of a District by petition of the owners of at least 50% of the proposed area of the district. The resolution also once again reiterated the wording of the August 20, 2003 Order [Order No. 2 of 2003] that "the proposed improvement and all of the expenses thereof shall be paid for in full by the Petitioner". The vote of the town board was unanimous; the resolution was adopted; and the Whitetail Stormwater Drainage District was created.

What makes this so interesting is that the developer of Whitetail [the same developer that submitted the above petition to the town board] has been billing the town over $60,000 to include purchase of a lot in 2006; work done by his own construction company to create a detention basin within his development in 2007; plus interest because the invoice has not been paid.

According to discussions at town board meetings, the money to pay the developer is supposed to be taken from the remnants of the $2 million stormwater bond. When we questioned the town liaison to the Stormwater Group she stated that the Stormwater Water Districts were not created legally. Really? We suggested at the last Stormwater Group meeting that she check on that because town board minutes seem to tell a different story.

For those unfamiliar with the Whitetail subdivision, it is located on a hill off Oneida Street across from the intersection of Elm & Oneida Streets.

Funny, the proposal brought before the town board in 2003 when the petitions were submitted to the Town Clerk to create the district seemed to say that the developer would bear the costs of the stormwater basins, etc.

Funny, too, that no one has bothered to mention the creation and terms of the Stormwater District that was created in 2003 when the discussion to pay over $60,000 comes up at town board meetings.

Odd that the town's liaison to the Stormwater Committee would be told that the Stormwater Drainage Districts were not legally created.

The explanation at several town board meetings and Stormwater Committee meetings has been that these invoices are part of a "handshake deal" between the developer and the former Highway Superintendent.

At one town board meeting on September 28, 2011, Town Attorney Herb Cully addressed the town board and stated that former Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland and former Town Planner Kurt Schwenzfeier provided a signed affidavit to the developer's attorney regarding this "handshake deal".

The town attorney advised the town that they should probably discuss this topic in Executive Session since it comes under "acquisition of property". Here is the video of that portion of the meeting:

Further making this payment seem questionable is that the NYS Comptroller in a document titled "Information for Town Officials" on page 55:

Town Law 117

In general, unless provision has been made in the annual budget or a supplemental appropriation has been provided, no officer, board, department or commission may expend, or contract to expend, any money or incur any liability or enter into any contract which involves the expenditure of money for any purpose, except leases or contracts as may have been entered into by the town for a term exceeding one year. Town Law, Section 117, provides that any contract, either verbal or written, made in violation of this prohibition is null and void.

This "wink and nod" agreement between the developer and former Highway Superintendent was never brought before the town board until well after the expense had been incurred; the work was was done by the construction company owned by the developer without bidding; the former Highway Superintendent had no authority to enter into a contract without town board approval; the expense was never budgeted; and no transfer of monies has been publicly approved by the town board to pay for these invoices prior to the expense being incurred. As far as we know, there is still no approval of the town board to pay these monies. It would seem to follow that this "agreement", according to Town Law 117, is null and void.

There are actually several Stormwater Districts within the Town of New Hartford as outlined in an email sent to former Highway Superintendent Cleveland from Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young.

The previous town board used about $100,000 of the Stormwater Bond to create two (2) detention basins in Jubilee to alleviate problems downstream from that development and from Longworth Acres; two more fairly new developments that have a Stormwater Drainage District [Jubilee District...Longworth District].

Minutes of the May 15, 2002 Town Board Meeting note:

Stormwater Drainage Issues

Stormwater drainage is becoming an increasingly important issue in Councilman Waszkiewicz’s district as well as Councilman Backman’s District and he alluded to the Whitetail Meadows subdivision being constructed on a hill off Oneida Street, Chadwicks. Who pays for the original stormwater management plan? Who pays for maintenance? The Town Board should think about whether we, as a Town, should shoulder that burden. The Town should consider this matter for future conversation and what might be recommended.

Is this "discussion" what prompted the developer to petition the town board for the creation of the Whitetail Stormwater Drainage District?

Opinions please...what are your thoughts on using taxpayer dollars to purchase land from a developer; using taxpayer dollars to build stormwater detention basins, etc. to control stormwater runoff from said development; and using taxpayer dollars to maintain these basins, etc.; particularly when the developer was the one who petitioned the town board to create the district in the first place?

What happens when the $2 million for stormwater is gone and we have another storm like the one on April 28, 2011?

New Year's Eve Swearing In Ceremony...

was held at the Town of New Hartford Court House at 12 noon on Saturday, December 31, 2011.

Sworn in were...William M. Virkler, Town Justice; Richard Woodland, Councilman, Ward 4; Paul Miscione, Councilman, Ward 2;.

Here is the video of the entire ceremony:

Town of New Hartford...

Adopted 2012 Budget

Agreement Between the Town of New Hartford and the PBA...January 1, 2009-December 31, 2013

1970...

• Paul McCartney announces that the Beatles have disbanded

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) begins operation

• Boeing 747 makes its first commercial passenger trip to London

• Dow Jones drops to 631

• 1970 - American Top 40, hosted by radio personality Casey Kasem, becomes the first successful nationally syndicated radio program featuring a weekly countdown

• The floppy disc appeared in 1970, and the next year Intel introduced the microprocessor, the "computer on a chip."

• Atari produced the first low-priced integrated circuit TV games, and the videocassette recorder (VCR) changed home entertainment forever.

• US lowers voting age from 21 to 18

• In 1970 the average income per year was $9,350.00 and by 1979 was $17,550.00

• In 1970 a gallon of gas was 36 cents and by 1979 was 86 cents

• The 70's also saw the beginning of the Home Computer due to Intel creating the first cheap microprocessor - the Intel 4004, and other integrated circuits. In the beginning the computers were mainly for the hobbyists and included the Apple II, the TRS-80, the Commodore PET, and Atari 400/800 and with the growth of these home computers Bulletin Boards became a popular way for people to find others with similar interests.

AND, on June 17, 1970, the Town of New Hartford adopted their Code of Ethics. More than forty (40) years later, it remains the same, never updated or amended to reflect today's world. Pretty sad...

According to today's Observer Dispatch editorial, Town Clerk Gail Wolanin Young said:

...New Hartford’s policy has been in place for a number of years, but she could not find it on the town website.

We found the policy online; there is a link to it from the town's website, but you have to know where to look. Amazing that the town clerk wasn't able to direct the Observer Dispatch to the link for access to town codes on the web; as town clerk, she is the "keeper" of the town codes.

However, the truth is, even if you knew where to find the Town of New Hartford Ethics Code, and you had concerns of a possible ethics violation, you would still need to figure out who to contact with your concerns. We tried to track that person down during the previous administration...here is what we found.

The first town board meeting of the year is an organizational meeting. During that meeting one of the resolutions that is passed is regarding the Ethics Board. The resolution is usually:

Ethics Committee
Presently, the Ethics Committee has one member, that being Councilman Woodland; two (2) positions are vacant and in the past the Town Board’s consensus was, in the event a situation arises, that the Town would use the County Ethics Committee.

Since town board minutes indicate that the County would be the place to voice our concerns, we headed down to the County Office Building. When we told the County's legal department that according to town board minutes, the County would take care of any ethics "situation" in the Town of New Hartford in lieu of the town having their own Ethics Committee, they said "News to us!"

So what do you do if you live in the Town of New Hartford and you feel there has been an ethics violation? We never did find out; although we have brought the subject to the town board more than once. Apparently, town officials prefer to be the lone fox guarding the hen house; they don't want to be bothered with resident complaints of possible ethics violation[s].

The town is allowed by law to use the County Ethics Committee; however, there should first be a mutual agreement between the town and county so that town residents have the ability to seek resolution to possible ethics violations of town officials. Instead, it appears to be yet another way to put up roadblocks and thus keep town residents from being able to seek resolution to allegations of possible official misconduct.

According to recent news articles, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office is requesting that town officials provide copies of their local code of ethics within 60 to 90 days. We are hopeful that, for New Hartford, it will mean updating their archaic Code of Ethics policy.

The Town of Whitestown updated their code in September 2007 to include an Ethics Board with town residents serving on the board.

The Town of New Hartford needs to follow suit. Update the Town of New Hartford Ethic Code and appoint interested town residents to serve on the board so that everyone has a place to go the next time an "issue arises".

According to the website of Harris Beach, PLLC, Attorneys At Law:

If the Comptroller’s March 2010 report is any indication of the upcoming review of municipal ethics codes, simply having an ethics code is not enough. Issues previously reviewed by the Comptroller that may be visited again include: the extent of issues addressed by an ethics code, the distribution and employees’ awareness of the code, whether ethics training is provided, the ability of municipal officials to understand and apply the code, how often the code is reviewed and updated, and the collection and review of financial disclosure forms.

In short, local governments should be prepared to either defend the sufficiency of their current ethics code and procedures, or proactively begin the process of reviewing their current code and procedures, and making the appropriate changes. Moreover, it is equally important that a municipality or board of ethics takes appropriate action when a complaint is made.

The Town of New Hartford would have a difficult time defending the sufficiency of their Ethics Code. Even if the town board decides to use the County Ethics Commission; at the very least, the town ethics code needs to be updated so that some of the "grey areas" in the present town code are eliminated to include how to register a complaint and with whom to register that complaint.

Here is a model code from the Office of the State Comptroller dated March 3, 2010.

New Hartford Public Library IRS 990 forms...full of fact or fiction?

How many people does it take...to run the New Hartford Public Library? Guess it depends on what year you are talking about.

We recently blogged about some of the inconsistencies found in the IRS Form 990s filed by the New Hartford Public Library in regard to the salary paid to the Library Director...IRS Form 990 and the New Hartford Public Library...

Further review of the 990s give rise to even more questions that would be worth asking. Actually we find it hard to believe that a board made up of professionals has not asked these questions already starting with why was the board of trustees not provided with a copy of the 990 prior to it being filed? Why is Mr. Wiatr the only trustee that is concerned?

For example, according to their most recent 990s:

Click on graphic for a larger image.

In 2010, the town reduced the library funding from the $535,341 budgeted in 2009 to a 2010 budget of $475,000 due to the financial stress that the town found itself in. That's a reduction of about $60,000 per year.

In November 2009, during the town budget workshops which were held by Councilwoman Krupa and Councilman Woodland in preparation of the town's 2010 budget, members of the library board vehemently proclaimed that they could not manage to run the library with that amount of reduced funding.

Yet, according to their 990 filed for the year 2010, they reported that they actually increased their workforce by eight (8) people to their current level of 29 employees.

In 2011 and 2012, the town once again cut the library budget by another $75,000 to the current budget of $400,000. However, in answer to the town's further reduced funding, they chose to close the library one day a week rather than reduce their staff...so now they are open fewer hours, but with the same number of employees as they had in 2010.

What we really find interesting is that each month this year, according to reports distributed at board meetings, their usage statistics have consistently shown a 24% reduction over last year's totals when compared month to month. When this is mentioned at their meetings, they try to blame it on the closing of the library on Wednesdays.

There are seven (7) days in a week; if your usuage declines by 24% due to being closed one day [Wednesday] a week, could it be that you chose to close on the wrong day? Or could there be something else at play here?

Mr. Wiatr wanted to try to analyze the usage to see if another day might be a better choice to close so he asked for usage reports from previous years. He was told that they had been destroyed and were no longer available. So what did they base their Wednesday closure decision on if the usage reports are no longer available?

What is interesting is, on page 6 of the 2010 IRS 990 form, under Section B. Policies...it says:

Does the organization have a written document retention and destruction policy? Answer: YES

Wonder what that policy is...or for that matter where it is stored?

We are also wondering what happened to their volunteers between 2008 when they reported 150 volunteers and now when they are reporting only 40 volunteers. The 990 says to estimate if necessary...but really, that is quite a range of volunteers. Is there a reason that their "estimate" of volunteers is that far apart over the course of a year?

Here's another example of the 990 reporting that doesn't make any sense when you compare the numbers year-to-year:

Why is the insurance expense for 2009 only $2,822 when the other years it is roughly $10,000-$11,000?

Here, for those that are interested, are the New Hartford Public Library 990s:

2007

2008

2009

2010

Next, we will report on their 2012 budget, not the one you will be voting on, but the budget they put together in the interim. We cannot believe that they "balanced" their budget by anticipating additional revenue from both the town and county...revenue that they have been advised will not be forthcoming.

To be continued...