In Loving Memory...

"A flower planted on Earth, blooming in Heaven..."

Karen Jane...Mommy's Princess

January 1, 1971 - March 29, 1996

Peace...

Believe....

Sometimes A Picture....

is worth a thousand words!



See that broken blue line with an arrow to the gas meter...if you look closely, you will notice it follows the path of yellow flags right to the gas meter on the backside of the Kellogg Road Center. Those would be the little yellow flags used by Niagara Mohawk to signify where a gas line exists prior to any construction taking place.

Councilman Robert A. Payne, III announced at the October 24, 2007 town board meeting that closing Kellogg Road Community Center for the winter months was necessary to save utility costs.

Is there a connection?

The Moen Faucet Caper...

If you remember, a while back we reported about the "brand-new, still in the box" Moen faucet that was, according to an email received from the Town Clerk, seized as the result of a drug bust and sold on eBay in July 2007. The Town Clerk's email said in part:

"As I indicated might be the case, the sale of the MOEN faucet was from seized property by the Town Police Department; therefore, there is no Purchase Order and no Invoice."

Anyway, it took several follow-up emails to the Town Clerk asking when we could expect to receive the information...the town clerk answered our last inquiry by saying that Chief Philo said they are waiting to get information from PayPal. Then a couple of days ago we suddenly received an email from her saying that she had our FOILed documents.

We were given several pages including a memo sent from Jeffrey Madden, Dispatch Supervisor, to the Town Clerk. The memo stated the name and address of the winning bidder and also said:

"A copy of Pay-Pal check number 723961 is also included to reflect the transfer of E-Bay sales revenue from this sale (and others) to the Town from Patrolman Herman.

Feel free to contact me with any questions."

O.K., we have a few questions. The Pay Pal check is made out to Officer Herman for $81.89 and the receipt made out to Officer Herman by Carol Fairbrother, the town bookkeeper, is also for $81.89. So we guess we should assume that just like the "only used for testing" Troy-bilt snowthrower that the town police seized and sold on eBay, Officer Herman's personal PayPal account was used to accept the money from the winning bidder.

But now included in the FOILed documents we get a copy of Officer Herman's personal check made out to the Town of New Hartford and we find out that Officer Herman had the PayPal money electronically transferred to his personal checking account "to speed the process and result in less fees"! So that is why we received a copy of Officer Herman's personal check to the town with the FOILed information on the Moen faucet; that check had nothing to do with the Moen faucet. Interesting, in Officer Herman's memo to Chief Philo he says he "will be working with Jeff (we assume Jeff Madden) to get the process streamlined." Streamlined...this whole process is already an accounting nightmare...where are the controls!

The money from the sales were supposedly deposited in Account A2665.1 - Police Sale of Equipment, but how can you deposit the entire amount of the sale price, less the listing and PayPal fees into a revenue account without accounting for the shipping cost. There should be two (2) accounts listed on that receipt a revenue (sale of equipment) and an expense (shipping expense).

Again, no sales tax was collected on any of the items. Even if the town wants to assume that the sales tax for vehicles sold on eBay will be collected when the vehicle is registered, when would the sales tax for the clock, the toner cartridge or the laptop computers be collected? Oh, yeah, we didn't bother to FOIL the information on the NEW HP Color Laser Printer Cyan Toner Cartridge or the circa 1910 Waterbury Clock Co. Covetry Mantle Clock that was sold by the town on eBay. We figured they were more items seized in drug busts!

When we were given the FOILed information, one thing jumped out at us...the copy of the receipt to Dan Herman had been altered. Naturally, we decided that we needed to find out why a receipt had been altered so we visited the bookkeeper today. She gave us a copy of the paperwork she had for the sale of the Moen faucet. Of course, we had to pay for the copies, but it was interesting that once again even though we were given copies of documents and the originals stayed with the bookkeeper, the Town Clerk's office had to make copies of our copies. What a waste of paper...but it is now quite obvious that we are being watched. Guess we are making people nervous...

What we found out was that there were actually two receipts that were altered by the bookkeeper, receipts # 9758 and 9759. The bookkeeper said she apparently misunderstood what the payments she received from Chief Philo were for and she had to make corrections. We must say we are totally confused at this point, because the memo supposedly sent to the bookkeeper on August 21, 2007 explicitly detailed the items and the amounts. It is difficult to determine why there was confusion when the bookkeeper made out the receipts 10 days later on August 31, 2007. See for yourself, we have provided copies of what we received from the bookkeeper including a copy of the memo from Chief Philo to the bookkeeper and copies of the altered receipts.

The problem here is not the small amount of money collected for the Moen faucet, but more important we see a systemic problem that is particularly troubling when you look at the larger picture. God help us if this is the way that business is conducted in the Town of New Hartford. No signed contracts...understated revenues...town monies run through employee personal accounts...there are no controls! Why are the town police even involved in the sale of items on eBay? That is not their area of expertise nor is it what they are being paid to do.

It took over a month for the town to provide us with information for the Moen faucet because they apparently were having trouble piecing the information together...if the town is audited, I hope someone can remember the details, because as you can see from the paperwork we have been given, it is one big confusing mess.

At the last town board meeting, we asked the name and location of the person who bought the 1999 International Harvester Truck with Plow that recently sold on eBay for $7,500; our question wasn't even acknowledged. When items, particularly items of this value are sold on eBay it should be a matter of public record and should be noted in the town board minutes. We hope the town board will make sure that the minutes contain a record of ALL sales of town equipment including those on eBay...it is the right thing to do!

Budgeted Revenues...cont'd

Concerned Citizens has now received the FOILed copy of the 2007 Estimate of Revenues submitted by Dispatch for the 2007 budget...the fees match the 2008 Estimate of Revenues submitted by Dispatch for the 2008 budget! The only problem is...neither the 2007 nor the 2008 Estimate of Revenue Worksheet fees match the 2007 unsigned contracts for each of the villages.

We also received an interesting letter from Ms. Petruccione, Village Clerk in Yorkville. The letter sort of speaks for itself; however, suffice it to say that the Village of Yorkville DOES NOT have copies of the signed Dispatch agreements. It might be interesting to find out if they are even paying the fees for the Town of New Hartford Dispatch...in fact, are any of the villages paying the fees without signed contracts?

When revenues are understated....it either creates a "slush fund" or it might be a method used to cover over-expenditures in previous years. Of course, then there is the scenario of revenues being understated and expenditures being overstated...that too will create a "slush fund" or cover-up.

Unfortunately, either scenario creates a tax rate that is higher than it needs to be...how much higher is just a matter of how big a "slush fund" or cover-up you "need"! Of course, the whole thing could just be a matter of incompetence! At any rate, Supervisor Reed, may we remind you that you are Chief Financial Officer according to NYS Town Law!

Stay tuned...we have another "mystery" that is starting to unravel. The particulars should be online sometime this afternoon. We may need your help to completely solve this mystery...or maybe not...at any rate you don't want to miss the next episode...

And remember...We've Only Just Begun!

Budgeted Revenues cont'd

Concerned Citizens FOILed 2008 Estimate of Revenue budget worksheets for several town departments.

Looking at the Dispatch 2008 Estimate of Revenues, we can see why the 2008 Budgeted revenues are less than the 2007 unsigned Dispatch contracts...the 2008 revenues projected on the Dispatch budget worksheets are actually less than the 2007 unsigned dispatch contracts that were provided to us. We have FOILed the 2007 Budget Worksheets, but we suspect that the 2007 Dispatch budget worksheets will tell the same story...either Dispatch has been under-reporting the revenues or the contracts are unsigned because they are not actually the monies being collected for the Town of New Hartford Dispatch fees.

Why would the 2008 budget worksheets be less than the 2007 unsigned contracts? It is particularly odd when the Dispatch union contracts were just renewed in May 2006 with additional costs associated with them? Where was Mr. Frank Basile, C.P.A. who is alleged to have help put together this year's budget? According to the September 26, 2007 town board minutes:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby retain the services of Frank J. Basile, CPA’s, P.C., 4305 Middle Settlement Road, New Hartford, New York 13413, for the sixteen- (16) month period beginning September 10, 2007 and ending December 31, 2008 for the following consultation services:

• Assistance with the annual budget process

Didn't anyone check any of the town contracts that are currently in place to make sure that the revenues reported by each department were accurate and that contracts were signed and up-to-date?

One has to wonder if the villages have been paying the Town of New Hartford per the unsigned contracts or per the revenues reported on the Dispatch revenue budget worksheets. According to the 2008 Adopted Budget, Dispatch expenses increased from $474,331 in 2007 to $490,389 in 2008 and yet in, if the worksheets submitted by Dispatch are correct, in 2008 the town is charging these Villages less than was contracted for in 2007. Add to that the fact that to date no 2008 contracts have been signed or presented to the town board?

Interestingly, we just received an email from the Village of New York Mills:

This is to acknowledge your FOIL request of December 13, 2007,
regarding the signed 9-11 dispatch agreements for 2005, 2006, & 2007.

We are researching your request and will contact you soon.

We also FOILed the 2008 Parks Department Budget Worksheets. Mike Jeffrey, Parks Department Head, actually stated on his Estimate of Revenues worksheet that the revenue for Summer Rec Programs & Sponsors would increase from $13,200 in 2007 to $13,500 for 2008. However, look at the 2008 Adopted Budget...there is no revenue projected in 2008 for account AA-2089.0 Fees/Summer Programs. Why?

We are thinking that maybe disbanding the Citizens Budget Committee was not such a hot idea after all...and we are also wondering if anything in this 2008 adopted budget can be believed...also kind of makes the 2007 adopted budget suspect as well!

to be continued...

Budgeted Expenses...cont'd

The last Dispatch contract to review is for the Village of New York Mills. The Village of New York Mills dispatch contracts, like the Village of Yorkville, cover the period June 1 to May 31 of the following year. As was the case with all the other Dispatch contracts, none of the New York Mills contracts received from the Town of New Hartford are signed. Even though, we FOILed the signed documents from the Village of NYM, the Village Clerk has been unable to provide us with signed copies as well.

In answer to our FOIL request to receive copies of the 2005 thru 2008 signed contracts, the Town of New Hartford provided us with unsigned contracts for 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007.

So to figure the budgeted amount for New York Mills for 2007, we would need to figure:

January to May @ 2006 contract = 3,438
May to June @ 2007 contract = 6,256
Total 2007 budget = 9,694

For 2008, we would have to figure the 2007 contract price since no 2008 contract has been signed; therefore, the budgeted amount should be $10,725.

As you can see on the 2007 budget, only $8,500 in revenues was budgeted or $1,194 less than the contract. The 2008 budget shows $8,500 in revenues was budgeted or $2,225 less than the contract...assuming that there will no change in the contracted amount when the 2008 contracts are finally signed. However, as we all know, the cost of maintaining any department goes up every year...Concerned Citizens wonders who is minding the store and why these additional costs are not being calculated into the contracts each year?

Yesterday, we received an answer from the New Hartford Town Clerk as to why we were not given the 2008 dispatch contracts as we requested in our FOIL:

The 2008 contracts for dispatch have not been presented to the Town Board yet for their approval.

Amazing, two (2) of the contracts should have been signed by May 1, 2007 and the third should have been signed by December 1, 2007. Why have no contracts been signed? Are these villages even paying the Town of New Hartford for Dispatch Services without a contract at this point? Why are the budgeted revenues for Dispatch less than the contracts...contractual revenue should be a "no-brainer" at budget time.

Next, we will look at the other revenues that seem to be missing dollar amounts in the 2008 budget. We are waiting for a couple of more FOILed documents that should 'shed some light' on the situation.

To be continued...

Budgeted Expenses...cont'd

The Village of Yorkville also contracts with the Town of New Hartford for 911 Dispatch services. Unlike the Village of Whitesboro dispatch contracts, Yorkville's contract runs from June 1 to May 31 each year just like the Village budget.

We specifically requested that FOILed Dispatch contracts should be for 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. The contracts we received from the Town of New Hartford for each village were unsigned contracts for 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007. Apparently, no 2008 contracts were available. The Village of Yorkville contract should have been signed by May 1, 2007 and the Village of NYM and Whitesboro were to be signed by December 1, 2007. We sent an email to the New Hartford town clerk asking why the 2008 contracts were not provided...our guess is just like the Village of Whitesboro stated...no contracts have been signed.

Anyway, getting back to the Village of Yorkville...To figure the amount that should have been included in the Town of New Hartford 2007 Budget for the Village of Yorkville dispatch fees, one has to take the first five (5) months of the year at the 2006 contract and the last seven (7) months at the 2007 contract.

So in 2007, the budgeted amount should be figured as follows:

January thru May 2007 at the 2006 contract = 2,292
June thru December 2007 at the 2007 contract = 4,171
Total budget amt = 6,463

However, according to the 2007 budget, the revenue was stated as $5,750...a difference of $713 less than contracted.

So since we haven't been provided with the 2008 contract, let's say that the contract for 2008 would be the same as the 2007 contract. That would mean that the 2008 budgeted revenue for the Village of Yorkville Dispatch Fees should be $7,150. However, the 2008 budget only shows $5,750...a difference of $1,400 less than contracted. Why?

It is interesting to note that the Village of Yorkville has been less than cooperative in answering our FOIL request. First, we were asked what we want it for...we don't have to say. It is our right to request and receive a copy of any public document. Next we receive a letter from the Village Clerk telling us "because we are in the midst of cleaning, painting, moving and trying to re-arrange furniture, files and paperwork", it will take 5 to 10 more days before the contracts will be made available. So, we are guessing what Ms. Petruccione probably meant is it will take 5 to 10 more days to get the necessary signatures because it probably doesn't look good if Concerned Citizens posts a contract on their blog showing that the Village of Yorkville has been paying monies out with no signed contract in place.

When revenues are understated, tax rates go up and more money is raised through taxes than is needed for projected expenses. This scenario raises concern that either the town board is surreptitiously trying to create a "slush fund"...or...the 2006 expenses outpaced the 2006 revenues and the fund balance is dwindling so the town board needs to start replenishing it. One might refer to that as mismanagement of taxpayer dollars.

Adding to our concern, last Februrary (2007), Concerned Citizens started trying to FOIL the 2006 audited financial statement and Opinion Letter, but to no avail. At late as July 2007, we were told that the report was still not available. We have submitted a new FOIL and we will report when and if we receive the financials.

We are starting to see a pattern here! Next, we will look at the Dispatch contracts for the Village of New York Mills.

to be continued...

Budgeted Expenses Minus Anticipated Revenues Equals....

the amount to be raised by taxes.

When Concerned Citizens first received the 2008 Preliminary Budget, we noticed that General-Whole-Town revenues seemed to have shifted.

You will notice that 2008 General Whole-Town Revenues are up by almost $400,000 over 2007, but 2008 General Wholetown Minus NYM is down by almost $175,000 for the same time where previously they seemed to increase each year. Seemed odd, so we started looking at revenues for all departments.

First thing that struck us as odd was that the budgeted Dispatch Fees for Whitesboro, Yorkville and New York Mills were down from the 2006 budget; the last budget prepared by the previous administration. Particularly odd, since the Dispatch Contract had been approved in May 2006 with increased costs.

So we sent a FOIL request to the Town of New Hartford for the Dispatch Contracts for the Village of Whitesboro, the Village of New York Mills and the Village of Yorkville for the years 2004, 2005, 2006 & 2007. None of copies of the contracts we were given were signed by either party so we went to each village and FOILed their copies of the contracts.

We start with the Village of Whitesboro. The Village of Whitesboro provided us with copies of the 2006 and 2007 contracts. They also stated that to date they had not received a contract for 2008 which is odd, because the contracts we have say "at least thirty (30) days prior to the termination of this contract, that termination being December 31 2006 (December 31, 2007), that the consideration for such services to be paid to the Town of New Hartford by the Village of Whitesboro shall be re-negotiated prior to the commencement of the new term commencing January 1, 2008. So wouldn't that be by December 1, 2007?

Additionally, the Village of Whitesboro only had copies of contracts signed by Richard E. Pugh, but they stated they never received signed copies back from the Town of New Hartford. We are amazed that they actually pay out taxpayer monies without first obtaining signed contracts.

We compared the contract we received from the Village Whitesboro to the Village of Whitesboro contract we received from the Town of New Hartford. The contracts from both the Village of Whitesboro and the Town of New Hartford state that the amount of the contract is for $7,150...the same as it has been since at least 2006. The 2006 Budgeted amount which was prepared by the previous administration matches the contracts...$7,150, but look at the 2008 budget, the Town of New Hartford has only budgeted $5,750 and only budgeted $5,750 in year 2007. That is a difference of $1,300 that was left out of the budget for this line item each year. Why, would the revenues not be reported accurately particularly if the revenue is determined by contract?

One other item jumped out at us as we reviewed the 2008 budget. According to the 2008 Approved Budget, the revenue for the DWI contract was $0. Seemed strange because in 2007 $39,500 was budgeted for the line. At the December 12, 2007 town board meeting, Chief Philo said they now have the budgeted amount for the DWI program...$40,000. That amount was left out of the 2008 Budget. Why...never seemed to be left out previously...late contract negotiations?

Of course, when you start understating revenue, the tax rate increases...

To be continued with information regarding the Villages of Yorkville and New York Mills, plus a couple of other interesting notes...

New Hartford Town Board...take note

Concerned Citizens suggests that the New Hartford Town Board take a lesson from the Town of Warren and Stark...there is an Open Meetings Law...start complying with it.

Judge: Towns Failed to Follow Law - Observer Dispatch, December 14, 2007

The failure by two Herkimer County towns to follow state Open Meetings Law proved costly when a judge cited that as one factor in voiding their approvals of a wind-turbine project, court records show.

AND

In addition, shutting out the public from key discussions on the project helped prompt state Supreme Court Justice Donald Greenwood to order the towns to pay the legal fees of the wind-turbine opponents who brought the lawsuit.

Concerned Citizens does believe that closing of the Storm Water Advisory Group to the public is not in compliance with the Open Meetings Law. Ms. Krupa said shortly after her election that she would work with the town board to try to open the meetings to the public. Well, Ms. Krupa...we haven't heard from you yet.

Reasons for Executive Sessions are rarely fully disclosed prior to the vote by the New Hartford Town Board to close the meeting and enter "executive" mode. Three executive session items appeared on the December 12, 2007 Town Board Meeting Agenda...only one was a legitimate reason....under Personnel...Parks Contract. The other two executive session items seemed to not be explained.

For the second time this year, the New Hartford Town Board went into Executive Session to discuss Police Union Contract...the first time being on May 9, 2007. The current Police Contract is in effect until December 31, 2008...a year away...it is doubtful that they are in contract negotiations at this time.

Roger Cleveland also had a questionable reason for Executive Session that he didn't seem to want to say out loud. The town clerk asked for specifics and Roger mumbled something to her...however, when we asked for clarification of his reason...we were told that the town clerk didn't understand what he was saying. According to the Committee on Open Government...possible litigation is not acceptable:

With regard to the sufficiency of a motion to discuss litigation, it has been held that:"It is insufficient to merely regurgitate the statutory language; to wit, 'discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation'. This boilerplate recitation does not comply with the intent of the statute. To validly convene an executive session for discussion of proposed, pending or current litigation, the public body must identify with particularity the pending, proposed or current litigation to be discussed during the executive session" [Daily Gazette Co. , Inc. v. Town Board, Town of Cobleskill, 44 NYS 2d 44, 46 (1981), emphasis added by court].

Robert Freeman, Executive Director of the Committee on Open Government wrote an Opinion on the disclosure of executive session discussions:

"...the public body must identify the subject matter to be discussed (See, Public Officers Law § 105 [1]), and it is apparent that this must be accomplished with some degree of particularity, i.e., merely reciting the statutory language is insufficient (see, Daily Gazette Co. v Town Bd., Town of Cobleskill, 111 Misc 2d 303, 304-305).

No one is above the law and being right isn't merely a matter of "because we said so". Attorney Green had some mumble-jumble reason that the Stormwater Advisory Group should be closed and Attorney Green was present at the Town Board Meeting on December 12th, but he said nothing regarding the reasons being given for executive session.

It would appear that the New Hartford Town Board has an attorney who seems to think his role is to cover-up the misdeeds of the town board and make excuses for their "bad" behavior...might not be the best "strategy" Attorney Green.

1-800-698-2909...

That would be the phone number for the New York State Sales Tax Department.

Concerned Citizens recommends that the Town of New Hartford call that number and ask if the town is exempt from collecting sales tax. We did...the answer...if you are selling taxable items in the State of New York, you must register as a vendor and you must collect the sales tax...even if you are a town board that thinks they are above the law...doesn't matter.

At last night's town board meeting, it was stated that the Town of New Hartford sold a 1999 Truck with plow for $7,500 on eBay. When questioned as to the buyer, they would not answer the question. When asked if they collected sales tax, Councilwoman Krupa replied and we quote, "We are not a sales tax vendor. We do not collect sales tax."

Considering the fact that Councilwoman Krupa touts herself as being a lawyer and a CPA for Pyramid Management, the parent company of Sangertown Mall, we suggest that she take a refresher course or at least call New York State...1-800-698-2909.

Henceforth, we suggest that the town board realize that we do not make statements unless we verify that they are correct...more than we can say for the Town of New Hartford!

BEWARE! If You Are Involved with Drugs in the Town of New Hartford...

you could lose everything but the kitchen sink...!

Back on July 26, 2007, we noticed that the New Hartford Police Dept. had placed a brand new, still in the box, Moen two Handle Hi-Arc Faucet on eBay. Kind of caught our attention, particularly after the response we got from the town on the "only used for testing" Snowthrower that the town sold on eBay.

So on November 14, 2007, almost a month ago, we FOILed the information pertaining to the sale of the faucet:

1. A copy of the purchase order, i.e., what town department originally purchased the faucet or how did we obtain the faucet.

2. If purchased, a copy of the invoice for the Moen faucet showing how much the town paid, where it was purchased and the date of the purchase.

3. A copy of the Bill of Sale for the ebay transaction, i.e., the name and address of the person who purchased the Moen faucet sold on ebay and the total amount paid by the eBay bid winner.

4. A copy of the Town receipt for the monies received for the ebay sale and what account was used for the monies received.

The first question was answered by the Town Clerk on November 26, 2007:

As I indicated might be the case, the sale of the MOEN faucet was from seized property by the Town Police Department; therefore, there is no Purchase Order and no Invoice.

I'm awaiting the documentation on the sale and a copy of the receipt for the purchase price.

We are still waiting for answers on the rest of the questions...almost a month later. Obviously, there is a problem here because the bookkeeper has no record of the transaction and the sale closed on July 26, 2007.

O.K. the faucet, according to the eBay description, is available for $238 at Home Deport and actually sold for $50 on eBay...small amount of money in the scheme of things, but let's take a good look at the potential problems.

First of all, do we want our police force going into homes and seeing dollar signs on ALL possessions; albeit from suspects in a drug bust, but where does it end...do we need to seize a new Moen faucet as the result of a drug bust? Is it the function of the police department to be selling town property and seized items on eBay? Wouldn't it be more prudent for the eBay account to be under the name of the The Town of New Hartford with the Town of New Hartford's own Paypal account instead of in the name of the New Hartford PD? Remember, the snowthrower...it was apparently run through an officer's private Paypal account and he in turn reimbursed the town. We are not implying anything about our police dept., but that kind of set-up leaves the door wide open for abuse...it is just not good accounting procedure. Shouldn't there be some sort of record of the sale, who it was sold it, how much, etc. That is what the town board minutes are supposed to be...a record of what goes on in town government that can be researched in the future if a question arises regarding the sale of a vehicle...like the problem with the van. Since the town started using eBay, there has been no record of what has been sold let alone how much it was sold for and to whom.

The previous administration started a dialogue on the concept of selling on eBay, but no policy was voted on. Their recommendations included:

checking the book value of all vehicles

create a Town of New Hartford account so that any future property to be sold can be advertised through this account

set a minimum bid by calling a dealer

They also intended that someone from the accounting department be put in charge of this function. This sounds like a more prudent way to handle the sale of town property, particularly since under Town Law 64, the Town Board is charged with:

2-a. Acquisition and sale of personal property. May take, purchase, lease, sell and dispose of personal property as the purposes of the town may require, except as otherwise provided by law.
3. Management, custody and control of town property. Shall have the management, custody and control of all town lands, buildings and property of the town and keep them in good repair and may cause the same to be insured against loss or damage by fire or other hazard.

There have been several items sold by newhartfordpd on eBay. The bookkeeper could only recall receiving information on a couple of them...perhaps, someone should gather the information on each sale and a full report should appear in the town board minutes sometime within the next couple of meetings. The taxpayers in New Hartford have a right to know what is sold and how much it is sold for. It is time to stop running this town like a private enterprise and start being accountable to the people who are paying the bills. HELL, private enterprises wouldn't last if they ran their business as lackadaisical as business is run in the Town of New Hartford.

We didn't even bother to ask about the antique clock or the HP toner cartridge that were sold on eBay...we are sure they were probably another drug seizure anyway.

We are still gathering information regarding some of the revenue questions and we will be starting that blog shortly.

The Gradall Invoice...

According to the Vantage Equipment invoice, on April 27, 2007, Vantage Equipment delivered a 2006 Gradall XL3100 S/N 0210017941, equipped per bid spec, to the Town of New Hartford.

Wait a minute isn't S/N 0210017941 the serial number of the one that is currently being insured and doesn't the 2007-08 Property Insurance list say it is a 2007 Gradall? According to the bid specifications, the bid was only supposed to be for a 2007 Gradall, but the bid sheet doesn't specifically say that is what the town would get. Hmm! Did the town buy a 2006 or 2007...is the S/N 0210017941 or 0210017817? Is the Gradall the town purchased the same one that has been sitting in the Highway Garage since last September?

According to the Purchase Order & Voucher we received, on 5/21/07, the Town of New Hartford paid $25,000 from Account DB5130.2 Highway Dept - Purchase New Machinery as partial payment for the Gradall XL3100. Additional paperwork, shows the final payment of $182,800 being paid from HE51302 which we believe is the Bond Anticipation Note. Total paid to Vantage is $207,800.

However, that brings us back to the lease/purchase. How much of the lease monies were applied to the purchase to "artificially" make the bid lower so that no one but Vantage Equipment could have won that bid? According to the slide that was on the Town of New Hartford website last November to support the need to bond, the lease expense is to be applied to the purchase price. In addition, if the bid submitted by Vantage Equipment for the Gradall came in at $207,800 in February 2007, how come the lease/purchase signed with Vantage Equipment in September 2006 was for $225,800, particularly when the town was supposedly renting a 2006 and purchasing a 2007?

Concerned Citizens has noticed that many times the serial number, VIN numbers and descriptions do not seem to match from document to document and notations in town board minutes do not match the numbers either. It is either "lousy" accounting of town owned equipment or a deliberate act to confuse.

Was that a lease or a lease/purchase??...

Suddenly, more of our FOILed documents became available today so we will put off the "revenue saga" and try to wrap up the "Gradall mystery". This will be a two part ending.

As we have repeatedly stated, the Highway Superintendent signed a lease/purchase with Vantage Equipment, LLC for a 2006 Gradall XL3100 on September 21, 2006 without board approval. Town law states that if an expenditure is subject to permissive referendum, then so is the signing of a lease purchase agreement. The Gradall purchase was part of the bond resolutions passed on October 4, 2006 (after Roger Cleveland signed the agreement), but Concerned Citizens collected enough signatures to bring the bonding to a vote...the vote wasn't scheduled until March 29, 2007. Superintendent Cleveland had no business signing that agreement because he had insufficient funds in both his 2006 Equipment Purchase and Equipment Lease budget lines and the Gradall bonding was subject to permissive referendum.

No problem...in comes Town Attorney Green with his "cover-up". However, we FOILed documents that specifically state it was a lease/purchase agreement from the get-go...in other words, the Highway Superintendent entered into an illegal agreement and Town Attorney Green tried to cover it up...and either the entire board was aware of the cover-up and unanimously voted in favor of the "cover-up" anyway or Attorney Green you failed to inform the board of what was "really" going on.

FOILed documents:

Invoice, voucher and purchase order for the 1st "rental" period (10-5-06 to 11-1-06)

Invoice, voucher and purchase order for the 2nd "rental" period (11-2-06 to 11-29-06)

Invoice, voucher and purchase order for the 3rd "rental" period (11-30-06 to12-27-06)

Invoice, voucher and purchase order for the 4th "rental" period (12-28-06 to 1-24-07)

Let's back up...According to the first lease/purchase agreement we received, the Town of New Hartford had a 2006 Gradall S/N 0210017817. After we received this document, we asked for more information because this first one seemed to be incomplete. That is when we received the second lease/purchase agreement; however, the second one doesn't have the S/N on it. There is also a Shop/Field Service Report included with the 11-2-06 to 11-29-06 paperwork that eludes to the fact that the town has a Gradall with a S/N of 0210017817.

Yet, odd it is that ALL of the invoices from Vantage Equipment state that the rental is for a Gradall XL3100 S/N 0210017941...we do believe that would be the 2007 Gradall that the town now owns as a result of the bid received in February 2007. Now why would Vantage think the town is leasing a 2007 Gradall S/N 0210017941 and yet the town lease/purchase contract says the lease is for a 2006 Gradall S/N 0210017817?

Odder still is the fact that the Purchase Orders signed by Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland ALL say they are for a budgeted item and three of the P.O. specifically state the the Purpose is "rent to own". Hmm...budgeted item...that would be because the Highway budget worksheets show that the Gradall was to be purchased with the bond money that was unfortunately voted down in March 2007... looks like Roger ASSumed...and, by the way, doesn't rent to own imply that it is a lease/purchase?

So which Gradall XL3100, license plate #39860-SC do we have in this picture that was taken at the Highway Garage on March 1, 2007?

Is it the 2006 Gradall S/N 0210017941 noted in the September 2006 lease/purchase or the 2007 Gradall S/N 0210017817 supposedly purchased as a result of the February bid? The one that the town is currently insuring. You know, the one the insurance company valued on 10-13-06 yet the town didn't approve the bond anticipation note for the purchase until May 2007?

Wow, now that we look at the 2007 Insured Property list that Baily, Haskell & LaLonde prepared...somehow the insurance company got the idea that the Model # of the Gradall is 39860SC. Someone should let them know that is the license plate number...the model number is XL3100!

By the way, according to the 2007 Approved New Equipment Highway budget worksheets, a new Bobcat was to be purchased...but we aren't currently insuring one. Strange, because on March 1, 2007 the Town of New Hartford had a Bobcat sitting in the Highway Garage. Looks to be the MDL863 purchased in February 2000...can't imagine why the town isn't insuring a Bobcat. Maybe someone "prematurely" got rid of it seeing that a new Bobcat was approved for purchase in 2007 anyway. Don't believe the town ever bought one though... at least, it was never discussed at a town board meeting.

Next, we will post the Invoice from Vantage Equipment, LLC, along with the town paperwork for the the purchase of the Gradall after the Bond Anticipation Note resolution is passed. Confused now?...Wait it gets better.

2008 Adopted Budget...

has been and is still being analyzed by members of our group.

Concerned Citizens has had a week or so to start reviewing the Adopted 2008 Town of New Hartford Budget. We have actually been reviewing the budget since we first received the Tentative Budget in early October. However, we decided to give the "benefit of the doubt" and not report until we had the actual APPROVED budget in our hands.

At first, we could not believe what we saw, but it certainly might explain why the Citizens Budget Committee was disbanded shortly after the current administration took office and might also explain why Mr. Frank Basile, CPA was hired to put together the 2008 Budget. Town Law specifically says that the Town Supervisor is Chief Financial Officer of the town. Mr. Basile, we hope you know what you are getting yourself into. Good thing you put some of that wording in your contract, you might need to rely on those words to disassociate yourself from this gang.

After discovering some possible "irregularities" with revenues reported, Concerned Citizens FOILed documents from the Town Clerk and followed up by FOILing some additional documents from surrounding towns and villages. The FOILed documents from the surrounding town and villages confirmed our suspicions.

We will start reporting our findings this week while we wait for some of our other FOILed information for the vehicles and some other rather mysterious "happenings" in the Town of New Hartford.

Please bear with us. As we previously stated, our FOILed documents from the Town of New Hartford seem to be slowing up...however...shortly, we will just go ahead and blog about the "missing documents" and let our readers decide why the FOILed information just doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, we have posted a copy of the 2008 Adopted Budget for your review.

Willowvale Fire Co. Vote, Tues, Dec. 11, 2007

We are writing this blog in response to a comment left on one of our earlier blogs. By the time the comment was left, we had already written several more blogs and this comment might have gotten overlooked by several of our visitors. The writer makes statements that we would like to address regarding Concerned Citizens and the vote on Tuesday:

Hardworking Committed Vol. FF said...
This is not wasteful. These volunteers work very hard for the citizens they serve. The volunteer Fire Dept.'s in our town save countless tax dollars over having to pay for paid fire protection services. This is not open for conjecture, it is fact.

Some people on here are against anything and everything just for spite with an added twist of venom to boot.

It's a shame some are so hell bent on getting the powers that be out, that nothing is worthy of support even if it is for a good cause.

December 5, 2007 1:56:00 PM EST

Why is it that some people just don't seem to get the point of this blog?

We are not here to tell people how to vote on any issue. Quite frankly, our main concern is to encourage every eligible voter to register and then take the time to vote...period. However, we firmly believe that EVERYONE has the right to the facts so that they can make an 'informed' decision at the polls. We also firmly believe in democracy...the majority rules. It is when the minority becomes the majority through the use of intimidation, distortion of the truth and hiding facts...in other words by "cultivating" the spread of apathy...that democracy is threatened.

The Benefit Plan for the Willowvale Fire Dept. was initially discussed at the July 11, 2007 Town Board Meeting. It took until the end of November before the department decided to hold a public hearing and send out notices to taxpayers in the Willowvale Fire Company district. In fact, several Willowvale Fire District residents wrote to tell us that they did not receive the mailing with the date of the public hearing until after the hearing took place. We would be willing to bet that if Concerned Citizens did not write about the vote, there would be no meeting or mailing.

Why? If this is a good program and economically feasible for the majority of people living in this fire district, why would you try to "hide" the facts? Why would you take away the 'rights' of the taxpayers who will be asked to fund the program? If the program is good, get out and 'sell it to the people'. Here is the response we left on the same blog:

New Hartford, N.Y. Online said...
Hardworking committed vol. ff,

It would appear that you are the one with venom. Not one word on this blog has said don't vote for the plan. Unlike the "official" town website, we do not advise anyone how to vote. That is up to every individual in the Willowvale Fire Dept. We merely brought information regarding the vote to the public.

The only thing we said was it is a shame that according to Councilman Payne at the last town board meeting the fire chief did not want to let people know about the vote.
The information we posted should have been brought to the taxpayer's attention by the Willowvale Fire Company; it should not have been news that needed to be 'broke' by us. If the Fire Company feel so strongly about the plan, give the people the information they need to make their own 'informed' decision.

December 6, 2007 8:11:00 AM EST

Below are links to every blog that we have written about the vote for the Willowvale Fire Company Benefit Plan this Tuesday, December 11, 2007. Please let us know where we told anyone how to vote. We welcome your comments and criticism. We will post all comments sent to us as long as they are "printable".

Thankful...

Willowvale Fire Co, Inc. Vote

Public Hearing
Please, if you live in the Willowvale Fire District, just get out and vote. Your vote DOES count.

p.s. Criticism of Concerned Citizens will not make us go away...Our fan mail consistently out-numbers our critics.

The bidding process in New Hartford

Vantage Equipment LLC. did indeed put in a bid in answer to the Invitation to Bid that was in the February 22, 2007 Observer Dispatch.

The bid instructions are very clear. Here are a couple of excerpts:

#19 - ALL bidding information must be on the forms furnished and not detached from this Bidding Document.

#21 - Make and model from each component must be stated with bids.

On the Bid Specifications, page 4, it says Warranty - Bidder to state.

So Highway Superintendent Cleveland accepts this bid without having any indication of what he would get. The bid sheet has no make, model, year, number of hours, warranty, etc. And it was actually accepted. Now that is the bid proposal of either someone who didn't read the directions and has never filled out a bid sheet before or is so confident that they are going to get the bid, they didn't worry about the formalities. How could the Town of New Hartford accept a bid for an unknown piece of equipment?

Something else is very strange. Let's take a look at the Schedule of Property that Bailey, Haskell & LaLonde provided the town for the 2007-2008 insurance. We are insuring a 2007 Gradall Serial #0210017941 that was valued on 10-13-06 for $225,800.

Valued on 10-13-06...that is interesting. The Town Board didn't adopt a resolution to BAN for the purchase of the Gradall until July 11, 2007...why did the insurance company value it as of 10-13-06. And if the bid is to be believed, the Town of New Hartford, paid $207,800 for a used 2007 Gradall, but the sales contract that was signed in September 2006 was for $225,800 and that was for a 2006 used Gradall.

Concerned Citizens is wondering why a used Gradall that the town paid $207,800 for would have an insured value of $225,800. Must be we got a terrific deal or...some of the lease monies were applied to the price and that fact was not acknowledged on the bid sheet. Probably not many companies could knock $18,000 off the price of a piece of equipment unless they received the money as part of a lease/purchase agreement. Guess there is only one company in this case that could afford to do that. And the winner is...

It would be interesting to see the actual paperwork for the purchase of the Gradall; we FOILed that information on November 18, 2007, but it seems to be slow in getting here. We will report as soon as we get it though. Oh, by the way, Vantage Equipment, LLC did sign a non-collusive bidding certificate.

As a side story...last week when we went to the Town Clerk's office to pick up some of our FOILed documents, it was rather odd. We paid for the copies, and were on our way to leave, when the person in the office said, "Oh, I need to make copies so I know what we have given you. Do you mind?" No, we don't mind, but didn't you just make us copies of what you have in your hand? So you need to make copies of our copies? Is someone in the town requesting to receive a copy of everything we FOIL? Strange...very strange indeed!

In an attempt to figure out the Gradall mess...

we FOILed more documents that were just received. We still have a couple of more FOILed documents regarding the Gradall purchase, and we will post them as soon as received.

Recap:
On September 21, 2006, the Highway Superintendent signs a lease/purchase agreement for a 2006 Gradall from Vantage Equipment. The lease/purchase agreement states that part of the lease money will be used to offset the cost of the new Gradall.

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
February 7, 2007
Page 5

Authorization for Competitive Bid – Gradall
The Highway Superintendent stated that he would like to go out for bids on a Gradall, explaining that the Town could continue to lease, but should look into the cost of acquiring this piece of equipment. In response to Councilman Reynold’s question, the Highway Superintendent responded that the vendor would apply some of the lease to the cost of a Gradall. Thereafter, Councilman Woodland presented the following Resolution and moved its adoption, which was seconded by Councilman Reynolds:

(RESOLUTION NO. 28 OF 2007)
RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board shall receive sealed bids for the purchase of one (1) Used Multi-purpose Excavator, in accordance with Town specifications; all bids are to be received by the Town Clerk’s Office no later than 10:45 A.M. on Monday, March 5, 2007 and then shall be publicly opened and read aloud at 11:00 A.M. on said date and in said Office; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED that the said Town Board hereby authorize and direct the Town Clerk to publish the legal requisite Advertisement-Invitation to Bid in The Observer Dispatch.

Don't remember exactly what Councilman Reynolds question was, but he was obviously talking about Vantage Equipment because that is who the Highway Superintendent signed a lease/purchase with. We also don't know why the Highway Superintendent said we should look into buying this piece of equipment; it was part of the bonding...the town board was looking into buying the equipment. Looks like some back-pedalling once the Highway Superintendent realized that we FOILed the lease/purchase agreement. Most importantly, how can the vendor apply some of the lease to the purchase price unless said vendor wins the bid??

I must say that since we mentioned the fact that the Highway Superintendent did not have the authority to sign a lease/purchase agreement, the town board minutes always seem to call it a lease. See the agreement for yourself and you decide. Why else would a lease agreement be written on a "Sales Contract"? See the back-pedaling by the town attorney at the April 11, 2007 Town Board meeting:

Page 6
Lease Agreement – Grad-all

After research, Town Attorney Gerald Green determined that a Highway Superintendent has the right to enter into a Lease Agreement but the Town Board must approve the amount. In September 2006 Highway Superintendent Cleveland had entered into a Lease Agreement, the amount of which needs Town Board approval, and would like the Board to authorize the Bookkeeper to transfer existing funds to cover this expense. Thereafter, Councilman Reynolds presented the following Resolution for adoption; seconded by Councilman Waszkiewicz:

(RESOLUTION NO. 57 OF 2007)

RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby approve the Lease Agreement entered into between Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland and Vantage Equipment, LLC for the lease of a Grad-all at the rate of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) per month and does further authorize Bookkeeper Carol Fairbrother to make the following budgetary transfers:

2006 Budget Transfer
From DB5130.4 to DB5130.44 - $15,000.00

2007 Budget Transfer
From DB5130.2 to DB 5130.44 - $ 5,000.00

After some research??? Town Attorney Green, don't you think that you should have done the research long before April 2007 since the lease/purchase agreement was signed in September 2006? Isn't that what you are being paid to do? By the way, Attorney Green, is it ethical for you to keep "covering up" the misdeeds of Department Heads and elected town officials?

Anyway, we must say to Attorney Green... "nice try"... but shouldn't the Highway Superintendent have come to the Town Board anyway when he looked at the 2006 Approved Highway Budget and realized that he only had $1,500 in Account DB5130.44 Equip. for Rental? In fact, even if Highway Superintendent Cleveland didn't bother to look at his 2006 Equip. Rental Account balance prior to committing taxpayer dollars, surely when the 2007 budget was prepared in October 2006, Mr. Cleveland should have made sure that he had money budgeted for the lease of the Gradall; that is if it was a lease..cough...cough. However, as you can see, Mr. Cleveland's budget contained no money for equipment rental in 2007. I thought town law says that money can't be spent that isn't budgeted unless the town board approves and does a transfer to cover the expense PRIOR to the expense being incurred. Perhaps it further cements the fact that this was a lease/purchase. Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland "gambled" on the fact that no one would collect signatures to bring the bonding to a mandatory vote as evidenced by his premature "disposal of 'needed' equipment" and his signing of a lease/purchase agreement before the town board even adopted the bond resolutions. How arrogant...guess you lost the bet, Roger...

Attorney Green, obviously, by calling it a lease, you think you have covered everyone's tail, but the fact remains that it was being called a lease/purchase by the town board until they realized the ramifications of calling it that and it was written on a Sales Contract and Roger Cleveland did not have adequate monies in his Equipment Rental budget line to cover the expense. Case closed.

Back to the bidding. According to Roger Cleveland, there was only one (1) bid submitted. So on November 18, 2007, we FOILed the bid specifications, the bid sheet and the non-collusive bidding certificate for the used multi-purpose excavator that the Town now hopes to buy with the bond monies that would be voted on March 29, 2007. As coincidence would have it, the one and only bid was from...Vantage Equipment, LLC.

This is the flimsiest bid proposal we have ever seen...no make, model, year, etc. and the Town of New Hartford accepted this bid. Why? Let's all try to guess...

To be continued...

I tawt I taw a puddy tat...

As we last reported in our blog, Beware Town of New Hartford...this Bobcat may come back to bite you!, Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland stated that he would like to auction or sell a 1995 Bobcat MDL853 - Serial Number 512819013 as noted in the September 20, 2006 Town Board minutes. It seemed quite odd since we received the minutes of February 16, 2000 stating that the Bobcat Serial Number 512819013 would be traded in and a new Bobcat was going to be purchased.

Yesterday, we received more of our FOILed documents and among them was copies of two (2) Town of New Hartford Purchase Orders for the Bobcat and extra buckets, the invoice for the new Bobcat Serial Number 514442306, the Town of New Hartford Voucher, and Town of New Hartford check dated September 14, 2000 to pay for the new Bobcat. These documents would be for the Bobcat mentioned in the February 16, 2000 town board minutes.

According to the check copy, the Town of New Hartford paid $10,209 which would indicate that the town did get credit for a trade-in. So did the Highway Superintendent pull a "bait and switch" with the company that sold the town the Bobcat...or was he mistaken in the fact that he had a 1995 Bobcat MDL853 - Serial Number 512819013 to sell?

Additionally, where is the Bobcat Serial Number 514442306 that was purchased in 2000? At the present time, there is no Bobcat listed on the Town insurance.

Lastly, let's take a look at the November 1, 2006 town board minutes regarding the bond issues that were voted on in March 2007. Under the equipment to be bonded for the Highway Dept. is listed:

Heavy Equipment - $797,179 – for purchase of:

One (1) excavating machine (Grad-all)
Three (3) dump/plow trucks
One (1) front-end loader
One (1) leaf machine
One (1) brush truck
One (2) small dump truck

Interesting to note that some of that equipment looks like equipment that was purchased by Mr. Al Roberts. Did the Highway Superintendent sell the equipment before he knew whether or not the bonding would be approved by the voters? Was the Bobcat (front-end loader) included in the equipment that Mr. Roberts "bought" for $9,200? Certainly, there is nothing in the minutes to indicate that the Bobcat was sold to anyone. Did the Highway Superintendent get "caught with his pants down" because the bonding was turned down by the voters and he had already "disposed" of the equipment? We know for a fact that the Town had to take out a Bond Anticipation Note for the Gradall to replace the Badger that was sold without board approval. The Highway Superintendent actually sold the Badger in anticipation of the bonding going through even though he admitted at a town board meeting that he "needs" a multi-purpose excavator. Doesn't make a lot of sense...

Right now the Town of New Hartford has about $1 million in Bond Anticipation Notes...most of them for Highway Equipment...and the deadline to pay them off is fast approaching. How many of the Bond Anticipation Notes are to replace equipment that was "disposed" of needlessly?

Call it a "quickie" or a "nooner"...

either way New Hartford taxpayers got "screwed"!

Concerned Citizens finds it interesting that not only did Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland request the town clerk to put an Advertisement to Bid in the Observer Dispatch for equipment that the Town Board did not declare as surplus, but the bid invitation was placed in the October 2, 2006 Observer Dispatch and the bid closing was noon on October 3, 2006. A little over a day...didn't leave much time for inspection of the equipment prior to submitting a bid.

Our guess is that Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland didn't want anyone to be able to see what they were bidding on...because the bid might just have come in higher. Or just maybe those "involved" already had a "buyer" for the equipment and wanted to make sure that the equipment was "available" (only to them) for a "quick" sale.

REGULAR TOWN BOARD MEETING
October 4, 2006
Page 3

Surplus Vehicle Sale – Rejection of Bids

The Highway Superintendent reported that two (2) Bids had been received Tuesday, October 3, 2006 for the Surplus Vehicle Sale:

Michael Santillo - Bid $2,006 for the 1980 Mack Truck
Harvey Material Corp. - Bid $1,700 for the 1980 Mack Truck.

No bids were received for the remaining four (4) surplus vehicles, i.e., 1995 Badger, 1990 G10 Van, 1996 Crown Victoria, 1999 Crown Victoria.

Funny that Roger Cleveland turned down two (2) bids for the dump truck because he said the bid was below book value, but he had no problem selling the 1995 Badger (Gradall) well below book value. What a joke!

Highway Superintendent Cleveland then reported that after the 12 Noon Bid Opening had closed on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 he received a Bid for all five (5) surplus vehicles, totaling Ninety-two Hundred Dollars ($9200) and he acknowledged receiving a check in this amount. [The name of the bidder had not been disclosed.] Thereafter, upon recommendation of the Highway Superintendent, Councilman Payne offered the following Resolution for adoption and Councilman Reynolds seconded same:

(RESOLUTION NO. 285 OF 2006)
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford does hereby reject the bids submitted by Michael Santillo and Harvey Material Corp. for surplus vehicles due to the bid amounts being below the current book value of the vehicles, according to the Highway Superintendent.

Concerned Citizens finds it interesting that some of the vehicles purchased by Mr. Al Roberts are no longer in his possession. In fact, Concerned Citizens has confirmed that Mr. Roberts never did register vehicles...probably never paid sales tax either because the Town of New Hartford doesn't collect sales tax on their sales. He merely turned around and "sold" them to a third party, who shall for the moment be left "unnamed".

Actually...it has been alleged that the Badger was sold for $22,000 to someone else by this "unnamed" person. Not a bad "profit" considering that Mr. Roberts paid $9,200 for the Badger, a dump truck, a van and 2 Crown Victorias.

Doesn't appear that our elected officials were looking out for the taxpayers best interest on this one... not to mention the fact that there are many illegal transactions going on in the Town of New Hartford.

Town License Plates were confiscated....

by the New York State Police.

This time trucks previously owned by the Town of New Hartford and "sold" to Al Roberts were pictured on location on Sangertown Mall property (owned by Pyramid Management Group) with town license plates still attached.

You might remember that a few weeks ago we reported about the van with Town of New Hartford license plates that was also pictured at Sangertown Mall. It seems that, Al Roberts, a contractor for Sangertown Mall, who just happens to be related to Councilman David Reynolds (formerly New Hartford Fire Chief) and also related to a member of the town Planning Board Roger Reynolds (formerly known as Mayor of the Village of New Hartford), has been "buying" town equipment at bargain basement prices and somehow the town license plates were left on some of the vehicles sold to Mr. Roberts. Since Mr. Roberts had town license plates, he didn't have to registered the vehicles, didn't have to pay the sales tax, and probably never bothered to insure the vehicles as well. We wonder if the owners of Sangertown Mall knew that Mr. Roberts didn't have the trucks he was using on their property registered or insured. Thank goodness there were no accidents with those trucks...given the fact that the license plates were still registered to the Town of New Hartford.

Look closely... also caught in the picture are two Town of New Hartford police cars...apparently the officers are conferring with each other. Maybe they realize that there seems to be something fishy about those orange trucks that are parked on Sangertown Mall property. Maybe they notice that on the front of those vehicles is what appears to be town license plates.They are probably sitting there just waiting to see who gets into the trucks so they can question them. The fact that the words "Town of New Hartford" on the door are painted over should give it away that those are privately owned trucks. Also, the fact that the license plates on those trucks say "official" should clinch the deal. After all, Concerned Citizens picked right up on it. Let's wait and see....

Apparently the town police did not notice...these pictures were taken last March and the State Police just confiscated the license plates a couple of weeks ago...
Concerned Citizens also wondered about the truck with a sander box. We couldn't find such a sale in the town board minutes. The only thing we found was dump trucks purchased by Al Roberts; that would imply there was a dump box on the back of the trucks that were sold... not a sander box. I wonder if someone forgot to remove the sander box before Mr. Roberts drove off with the dump truck he bought? Hmmm!!??

It would appear that in New Hartford all that matters is...

Public Hearing - Willowvale Fire Company Vote

Concerned Citizens feels that it is important to let residents of the Willowvale Fire Company know about the vote on the Service Awards Program on Tuesday, December 11, 2007. Therefore, we have decided to postpone until Monday further blogging of the FOILed documents like we initially planned to do. We want to make sure that taxpayers in the Willowvale District know about the public meeting...this is your chance to ask questions. Please let your friends and neighbors know of this public meeting and the vote on December 11, 2007.

Information regarding a public hearing can be found on the "official" town website. The public hearing date is December 4, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. The notice doesn't say specifically where, but we will assume at the Willowvale Firehouse. Concerned Citizens encourages all residents of the fire district to attend this meeting and ask questions.

Now, Concerned Citizens would like to turn our attention to the New Hartford Town Board. Perhaps you folks have not heard of the Hatch Act. For those of you that have not, we have copied a section of the "Official" U.S. Office of Special Counsel website:

Hatch Act for State and Local Employees

The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency....An employee’s conduct is also subject to the laws of the state and the regulations of the employing agency. Additionally, employees should be aware that the prohibitions of the Hatch Act are not affected by state or local laws.

Prohibited Activities

Covered state and local employees may not

• be candidates for public office in a partisan election

• use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination

• directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate

The "Official" town website...and the operative words are "official town"...SHOULD NOT be used to tell residents to vote "YES" on any issue. We appreciate the fact that finally, a little over a week before the vote, the town board in conjunction with the fire company has decided to give the taxpayers a chance to ask questions; however, anything posted on the "official" town website should be for "official" town business and information dissemination ONLY...not political campaigning. What will we see next...political signs on the town website for the re-election of Earle Reed, Dave Reynolds, Robert Payne and Roger Cleveland in 2009?

Perhaps someone should consult with the town attorney, although we know he doesn't like us telling him how to do his job, right Attorney Green? However, sometimes, one has to do what one has to do...