Last night, our town supervisor, Patrick Tyksinski, informed us that you are no guru of the Freedom of Information Law. We have so counted on your sage advice for many years in our effort to make documents available to our town residents and taxpayers; sometimes documents that our town leaders would prefer to keep out of the view of the public.
Our files are overflowing with copies of your opinion letters that we thought were right on especially when you cite so many court cases that agree with your opinions, but now our supervisor informs us that many cases have gone against you; even some cases locally.
We've attended several of your frank discussions when you have been invited to speak regarding the Open Meetings Law and the Freedom of Information Law. You are a wonderful speaker; we even enjoy your humor!
Our bubble has been burst! How will we know which 50% of the time the NYS Comptroller is right? How will we know if your opinions are right? Will this be the end of our being able to provide the public with documents that are safely collecting dust behind closed doors?
What's next? Will we be told that there is no Santa Claus???
Your friends and loyal followers...
Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government
p.s. Mr. Freeman, please tell us that our town supervisor is wrong. We believe in you and even have your picture on the wall over our computer. [sigh]
On May 21, 2013 voters in the New Hartford Central School District will be voting on the 2013-2014 school budget, a proposition to bond for school buses and also to elect one school board candidate.
Voting will take place at the New Hartford High School Gymnasium at 33 Oxford Road from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Absentee ballots are available by contacting the District Clerk, Mrs. Aurelia R. Greico.
Two candidates are vying for the one open seat currently held by Andrew Ward.
The candidates are:
Andrew Ward
Ed Flemma
Both candidates spoke at the Budget Hearing held last Tuesday. We videotaped both presentations.
The Observer Dispatch posed questions to both school board candidates; the questions and each candidate's answers are available online at Q & A with New Hartford school board candidates.
Please take the time to vote Tuesday, May 21, 2013.
The problem isn't that Mr. Evans chose to send a memo endorsing a candidate for school board election; the problem is the highlighted text in Mr. Evans' memo:
I have attached the letter of support from the Board of Education.
Here is a copy of the letter Mr. Evans referred to in his email. While the letter isn't on school letterhead, it is clear from Mr. Evans' email that he is sending it on behalf of the New Hartford Board of Education. Should the school board be endorsing candidates?
We have also been told by a little "birdie" that during school board elections, the school allows their email portal to be used to send out messages reminding parents of the school board vote and endorsing 'certain' candidates for the school board.
We would like to believe that this isn't true; however, it reminds us of an exchange of emails sent between Ms. Romano and a past New Hartford Central School Board member regarding the library re-chartering vote last August.
It appears that the school does allow its email portal to be used for "pushing" political agendas.
Here is a link to emails 555, 556 and 557 of 817 emails FOILed from Ms. Romano. Should the school be using their resources that are paid for by taxpayer dollars to promote their own political agenda?
Recently we were apprised of another current school board member publicly making defamatory remarks about a school board candidate, Ed Flemma, on her Facebook page. We won't embarrass the board member by posting a copy of her Facebook page on this blog, but what lengths should a sitting school board member be allowed to go when endorsing school board candidates?
For that matter, why does a sitting school board member who has been board president for the past two years need his supporters to go to such extremes? Why would this school board member be willing to win at any cost? Is this the kind of leadership needed on our school board?
Such corruption isn’t often — if at all — found at local levels, where reasons for avoiding public office might vary from limited time to lack of interest. Positions often are filled with folks who have a deep civic commitment rather than political aspirations. People aren’t exactly fighting for these jobs.
Unfortunately, that is not entirely correct. People do fight for these jobs, but most often they cannot win; how can you win when all the "cards" are stacked against you? Many hopefuls give up trying and that is just what the those 'in charge' hope to accomplish.
Things need to change. The New Hartford Central School and its Board of Education need to rethink their policies regarding use of school resources. Public participation in government on all levels is critical; it's not just a right of the 'well-heeled' in our community.
Pursuant to Article 2 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law, aPublic Hearing was held at the May 8, 2013 town board meeting to inform the public about the proposed acquisition of a permanent and an additional temporary easement to complete Phase 2 of the Beechwood Road Stormwater Project and to give the public a chance to present statements concerning the proposed project.
As usual, we have created an Excel spreadsheet of all residential properties. Once you download the spreadsheet, you will be able to sort the records in several different ways. To start out, we have sorted the information according to the street name and number.
If you have any questions regarding this information or if you wish to grieve your assessment, you should contact the Town of New Hartford Assessor's Office.
without even giving him the courtesy of being willing to listen and discuss his ideas.
What was all the poo pooing about during the April 17, 2013 Library Board of Trustees meeting? Trustee Edward Flemma had two (2) suggestions which he even volunteered to further research and present to the board, if the board agreed for him to go forward.
Mr. Flemma's first suggestion was that it might be a good idea to investigate the possibility of sharing a library director with another library in the Mid-York System to save money. Mr. Flemma had asked the Director of the Mid-York System if it was do-able and was told that it is worth investigating. However, Connie Stephens and Mary DuRoss shut Mr. Flemma's idea down.
Actually a quick Google search proved that many libraries are looking at shared services, not only for director, but also purchase of books and other jobs within the library.
Many library are also developing volunteer programs to help contain operational costs. Last November, a previous trustee, Karen Madden, proposed a comprehensive volunteer program that she spent a lot of time developing. The same two trustees shut her down as she explained her ideas to the board. Ms. Madden resigned as library trustee shortly thereafter...one (1) month after officially being appointed to the position.
Second, Mr. Flemma suggested that it did not make sense to advertise for a Library Director without first creating a job description and corresponding job evaluation criteria. Mr. Flemma had even put together a possible job description and evaluation criteria for board discussion and was willing to further develop them on his own time.
Sounds like a good idea, Mr. Flemma; isn't that what is normally done for most jobs? Who ever heard of hiring someone in a position of leadership without giving them a clearly defined job description and evaluation criteria to measure job performance? Perhaps that is why the current Library Director has never been evaluated...the documents don't exist.
But, Trustees Mary DuRoss and Connie Stephens, two of the trustees who are consistently recycled as library board officers and key members of most of the standing committees, would hear nothing of the sort.
Trustee Connie Stephens suddenly produced what she called a library director job description dated 1996 that she found in a box of papers she had at her house. 1996 in a box of papers she had at her house...is she kidding? Perhaps an update is in order!
During the discussion, Trustee Connie Stephens told Trustee Flemma:
"You have only been here for two (2) months and already you have taken up with him", pointing to Trustee Wiatr.
Gee, Connie, maybe Trustee Wiatr has some good ideas too, but the present board members don't want to hear them; just as they now don't want to hear Trustee Flemma's ideas. Arrogance and disgraceful...those are the only words we can use that are fit for print.
These two (2) trustees need to get down off their high horse! The New Hartford Public Library should not be run as a dictatorship...this library belongs to the public and every trustee has the right to bring forth ideas for discussion; it is not the playground of those who think they are the elite members of our community. Our library is doomed as long as the same cantankerous, self-serving players keep running the show.
Here is the portion of the video where Trustee Flemma tries to bring his ideas forward; although their backs are to the camera, the one on the left is Connie Stephens and on the right is Mary DuRoss. Board President Linda Romano had to leave early; Treasurer Earl Cunningham just got up and left the table prior to the end of the meeting.
Disclaimer:
[Our video is being presented in its entirety starting from the time that Trustee Flemma brought forward his suggestions.
Some members of the board like to imply that we are further editing the videos to make them look bad. We can't take credit for that...they do it all by themselves!]
On March 22, 2013, the Observer Dispatch ran an article, New Hartford Searches for new library director. The article stated that the library would stop taking applications at the end of the month [March 31]. We thought that strange since just two days earlier there was a library board vote taken that contradicted that statement.
At the March 20, 2013 Library Board of Trustees Meeting, the conversation at the table centered around the search for a Director to replace Hans Plambeck who is retiring in May.
Mary DuRoss and Connie Stephens gave a report of the progress of the committee. Mary noted that there were nine (9) applications received with one more expected, but not yet received.
Considerable discussion centered around whether or not they had received enough applicants. It was hoped that more applications would be received since some applicants may not be qualified by Civil Service. As a precaution, Mary DuRoss asked for a resolution by the board to leave it to the discretion of the committee as to whether or not to extend the date. However, after additional discussion, Board President Linda Romano suggested that the board just go ahead and vote to extend the deadline.
Connie Stephens moved that the deadline be extended 30 days and Les Cortright seconded; discussion ensued.
Finally, Board President Romano called for a vote to extend the deadline for 30 days; the vote was unanimous...the deadline for submitting applications would be extended for 30 days or April 30, 2013.
After reading the Observer Dispatch article and knowing the vote that was taken just two days earlier at the March 20th meeting, we immediately checked the New Hartford Public Library website and noticed that the deadline had not been updated.
We waited a couple of weeks. On April 8, 2013, we once again checked the library website along with three (3) other sites where the director position was advertised. Deadline was still March 31, 2013 on each of the sites we visited. In fact today, the New Hartford Public Library website still lists March 31, 2013 as the deadline on the Director search page.
We contacted Trustee Wiatr to ask why; he informed us that Connie Stephens, the person who on March 20, 2013 made the motion to extend the deadline, now states:
"The motion to extend the deadline by one month was only if we did not receive enough qualified applications by March 31, 2013.
Obviously, that ONE application they were waiting for was submitted by March 31st after all!
At the request of the board president, Attorney Linda Romano, the board unanimously voted to extend the application deadline for 30 days. No one has the right to ignore the vote of the board. Videotapes don't lie...
to review Board policy #6100.2 - Interscholastic Athletic Regulations.
According to summary minutes of the February 26, 2013 New Hartford Central School Board of Education:
"The charge, members, and timeline for the Advisory Committee to Review the Interscholastic Athletic Program were approved."
It is our understanding that there have been two (2) meetings of this advisory committee thus far; one on March 26, 2013 and one Monday evening, April 1, 2013.
According to a document found on the school's website, the committee has been charged with:
The Committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the Board of Education and work with the district toward the achievement of its educational mission according to the attached Board of Education Policy #2015.
To insure the integrity and credibility of the committee, the committee shall follow to the maximum extent possible the intent of the Open Meetings' Law.
Unfortunately, the Open Meetings Law has NOT been followed. The school board named two (2) school board members on this advisory committee; that automatically makes the meeting subject to the Open Meetings Law regardless of school board policy. The Open Meetings Law not only requires that the meetings be open to the public, but they must be noticed to the public at least 72 hours in advance.
While the public was allowed to attend both of these meetings; there was no notice on the school's website nor in the Observer Dispatch as to the time and place of the meeting. We received several emails asking us if we knew anything about when and where these meetings were taking place.
The charge statement continues:
The committee will review Board policy #6100.2 - Interscholastic Athletic Regulations. This will include review of the policy in relation to recent concerns. It is also the intent of the Board of Education to continue the long history in New Hartford of emphasizing the important qualities of the student athlete. Recommendations will be made to the Board by June 28, 2013.
We have been advised that the "recent concerns" mentioned above center around the resignation of two long-time coaches, Bob Jones and Mike Callan; according to Observer Dispatch articles, both resigned citing "philosophical differences".
Referring back to Board of Education Policy 2015 regarding Advisory Committees, it also says:
Committee membership should reflect the subject matter to be considered, as well as the population/geography of the District.
Those chosen to serve on this advisory committee are:
Richard Hunt.....Chairperson [former teacher, and administrator]
Peter Alvanos.....Athletic Director
Tim Abraham.....Athletic Trainer
Paul Piotrowski; Beth Soggs.....Board Members
Danielle McQueary.....Coach
Jamie Zalewski; Peter Rayhill.....Community Representatives
Tim Crowe.....Dean of Students, Senior High School
Mike Hogan.....NHEU Representative
Peter Anderson.....NHTA Representative
Dan Pope.....Physical Education Department Chair
Keith Levatino.....Principal, Junior High School
Lynn Moretz.....PTA Representative
Kyle Maring.....Student Representative
Kevin Bovi.....Teacher and Coach
Hmmm...does this committee meet the criteria set forth by the Board of Education in Board Policy #2015?
Thanks to an anonymous tipster, we did find out about the meetings in time to videotape!
Below is the March 26, 2013 meeting in its' entirety:
Here's Part 1 of the April 1, 2013 meeting. We had to break it up into two parts because after about 10 minutes of the meeting, Mr. Hunt decided to divide the committee into three discussion groups with Mr. Hunt visiting each group as they met in private. Open Meetings Law?
About 35 minutes later, the group reconvened and continued their discussions.
Here is Part 2 of the April 1, 2013 meeting:
The purpose of this hand-selected advisory committee?? It would appear that the school is trying to put out a fire using water and a bucket that has a hole in the bottom.
At the April 1st meeting, it was announced that the next meeting would be on April 29, 2013.
According to today's Observer Dispatch article, Robert Freeman from the Committee on Open Government opined:
“There is no basis for going into executive session, because they’re talking about how as the government body, they’re allocating public money.”
It appears that the executive session wasn't called to discuss the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation; they were actually talking about positions that were going to be cut from the budget. That is not a basis for executive session; that is a policy issue and relates to the spending of public monies.
Normally, we don't report on the actions of the Utica School Board; it's the Open Meetings Law violation that is of interest to us. Sadly, the Utica School Board is not alone in their failure to conduct all their meetings in accordance with the Open Meetings Law. We've seen it at the New Hartford Library Board meetings as well as other meetings of public officials.
Back in 2006, shortly after another Utica School Board questionable executive session was reported on by the Observer Dispatch, Robert Freeman came to town to conduct a panel discussion on the Open Meetings and Freedom of Information Laws.
We recall that a Utica school board member, who was chosen to be a part of the panel discussion, told Robert Freeman that they were relatively new to the Utica School Board; actually in the second year of their first term on the board. This board member had concerns about the executive session that had been reported in the Observer Dispatch in November 2006. Several questions were asked of Mr. Freeman relating to executive sessions and he answered each one with clarity.
The board member seemed sincere in wanting to learn about the Open Meeting Law and Freedom of Information Law. The member also admitted that perhaps the executive session in question back in 2006 was not in keeping with the Open Meetings Law.
Yet, this same board member stated in today's paper that she disagreed with Mr. Freeman. Unfortunately, it appears that the reporter was unable to find even one board member who was willing to acknowledge that the Open Meetings Law was probably violated last week. Even the school board attorney felt that the executive session was justified.
The Open Meetings Law is really not that difficult to understand; non-compliance is a choice!
To find out the board member who spoke to Robert Freeman that evening back in 2006, you can click on the link below. This is a WMA format; you will need Windows Media Player to be able to hear the audio recording.
Last evening, Town of New Hartford Zoning Board of Appeals members had to struggle with balancing their desire to provide "relief" to an applicant against their duty to interpret zoning regulations in accordance with NYS Zoning Law.
Clearly, it was difficult for board members to deny relief to a town resident who obviously has personal hardship reasons for requesting the variance; however, the use variance for 3900 Oneida [formerly Massouds] was rightfully denied as the applicant failed to prove her case.
NYS Zoning Law is clear; if the applicant fails to prove one or more of the four (4) required standards, the request must be denied. The members of the Zoning Board of Appeals have no other choice. The power of the board of appeals must be exercised very carefully lest there be serious conflict with the overall zoning scheme for the community.
As we have already written in previous blogs, the standards to be proven by an applicant desiring a use variance are intended to be difficult in order to protect property values. The protections afforded residents and property owners within the community from undesirable development come from the restrictiveness of zoning.
Here is the videotape excerpt from last evening's request for a use variance for 3900 Oneida Street:
