NO PARKING ANYTIME...

You may have noticed that in the Local section of today's Observer Dispatch there was a legal notice announcing the time and place of a Public Hearing for the proposed "NO PARKING ANYTIME" sign in front of 5 parcels on the west side of Oneida Street:

Please take further notice that a Public Hearing upon said Local Law Introductory will be held at the Kellogg Road Community Center Building, New Hartford, NY on the 10th day of September, 2008 at 6:00 P.M...

Since we last blogged about the NO PARKING ANYTIME sign in front of 5 parcels on Oneida Street in Washington Mills, we have been doing a little investigating. We were concerned about the fact that Councilman Robert Payne, the town board representative from that area didn't seem to know what side of the street was involved or for that matter, he didn't even know what streets were on which side. It just didn't make any sense that the Ward 1 Councilman couldn't even talk intelligently about a proposed law for the Ward he represents so we sent a FOIL request to the Town Clerk on August 21, 2008:

I would like to FOIL from all town board members (to include the Town Supervisor), the Town Highway Superintendent and the Police Chief any correspondence, emails, phone records, or anything that exists regarding the need for NO PARKING signs on the west side of Oneida Street in reference to the need for Local Law Introductory "D" of 2008 to amend the Code of the Town of New Hartford, Chapter 113 entitled VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC by adding a portion of Oneida Street to Section 113-45. Schedule XI: Parking Prohibited at All times.

Today, we received an email response to our FOIL request from the Town Clerk:

Cathy,

The Police Chief and Board members have no records. I am awaiting the Highway Superintendent's response.

Gail Wolanin Young

This is amazing, the town board is holding a Public Hearing to amend a Local Law and yet no one on the Town Board or even the Police Chief has any emails or correspondence to justify the need for a NO PARKING sign?!! It would appear that we were correct when we questioned whether Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland was proposing this law for a specific reason (political harassment) on behalf of one of his "friends" who seems to have an axe to grind with one of the owners of property in that area of Oneida Street.

Since when is Mr. Cleveland suppose to propose an amendment to a law without any involvement of the town board; for that matter why wasn't the Police Chief involved in the decision? Why is the Town Board authorizing a legal notice stating that "the New Hartford Town Board has introduced a local law designated Local Law Introductory "D" of 2008..." when not even one member of the town board has any documentation to support the need for the law? Something is very wrong in the Town of New Hartford!

We want to add that since the last board meeting when Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland announced it was necessary to have a Public Hearing on the proposed new law, we have taken the time to drive in the area in question just to see if there is a problem; varying the time of day that we drove over Oneida Street. Guess what...not once did we see anyone parking in the area of the proposed sign. This is clearly a Town Board and Highway Superintendent out of control!

It will be interesting to see how many of them vote "aye" in support of a law they have no documentation to support why it is being proposed.

You know, a couple of members of Concerned Citizens were strolling along Genesee Street tonight and they reported that they heard some noise coming from the direction of Butler Hall. It is unknown exactly what office it was coming from, but it appeared to be from the upper floor of Butler Hall...

If you missed our first blog on this proposed new law, you can read it here. We even provided pictures of the proposed NO PARKING ANYTIME sign.

Cover-up in the Town of New Hartford - Part 3

If you haven't already read Part 1 & 2, we hope you will take the time to do so.

Since the town board was unable to reach a consensus regarding our FOIL appeal at the August 13, 2008 town board meeting and because the FOI Law states that appeals must be decided in 10 business days, it was necessary for the Town Supervisor to call a Special Town Board meeting on August 25, 2008.

At the meeting, Supervisor Reed read a prepared statement from Town Attorney Gerald Green once again stating that our FOIL request was denied based on Civil Rights Law 50-a. Concerned Citizens had their lawyer in attendance, but Mr. Reed would not allow any questions from him regarding the prepared statement that was read.

When we questioned the reversal of the opinion of Robert Freeman, the Town Clerk stated that "any personnel records of a police dept. that are to be used to consider the future employment of an officer would exempt that". The town clerk thought that might be the basis for Mr. Freeman's reversal. Ms. Lawrence of Concerned Citizens then stated that one could probably assume that since the town attorney feels that Civil Rights Law 50-a was appropriate for a denial, one could only make the assumption that a police officer was involved in the stalking case. The town board neither confirmed or denied, but Supervisor Reed immediately adjourned the meeting.

The attorney for Concerned Citizens asked for a copy of the prepared statement that was read by Supervisor Reed; however, Supervisor Reed said "no, it is privileged and confidential information". Privileged information that was read aloud in a public meeting...hmm! Watch the demeanor of Ms. Krupa, an attorney and Ward 2 Councilwoman, who snapped at our lawyer that Supervisor Reed did not read everything on the paper; he left out some of the information. Interesting!

In fact our camera was turned off when we realized that the town board never did a formal vote on the appeal because the town board was in such a hurry to get out of there. We had to remind the town clerk that no vote was taken and she had to run after the town board to bring them back to the meeting. The meeting was re-opened and a vote was quickly taken. They once again adjourned the meeting and scurried out of the building.

Concerned Citizens would like to point out that the woman who appeared before the town board came looking for a solution to a situation she felt put her life in danger and she was treated horribly. No resident should ever be treated in such a manner. We also want to state that it was obvious at the July 9th town board meeting that the resident was someone that Supervisor Reed recognized...Mr. Reed became visibly upset as the resident walked into the Kellogg Road Community Center just before the start of the meeting.

The whole incident could have been avoided if Sgt. Michael Inserra took the time to take a statement from the resident; if Police Chief Philo had accepted the letter that was sent "restricted delivery" and took the time to listen to the resident's complaint; if Supervisor Reed had responded to the letter sent to him "restricted delivery", after all, he had from June 20, 2008 until the July 9, 2008 town board meeting to do so...instead he dismissed the woman's claim; and if Supervisor Reed truly did take the letter directly to the Chairman of the Police Commission, then why didn't the Chairman respond to the resident's complaint in a timely fashion? Their failure to respond to the complaint filed by this resident made it quite obvious that they were aware of the situation and that their only intention was to protect "one of their own".

One final note, not one town board member spoke up regarding the treatment of this resident during her time before the board on July 9th. Not one! Surely one of them is the councilperson who was elected to represent this Town of New Hartford resident. But not one of them came forward to address her concerns. Is this how people can expect to be treated if they feel they have a valid complaint regarding a member of the New Hartford Police Department...the very people that are paid extremely well to protect residents? No one is above the law...including members of the New Hartford Police Dept. Why is this being hushed...don't taxpayers have the right to know?

For the record, we would like to point out that every Town Board meeting has been videotaped by Concerned Citizens since December 28, 2007. All videotapes are available on our website. Our cameras are not hidden; they are in plain view. Every town board member and Department Head knows that we are videotaping, but it doesn't seem to affect the arrogant manner in which they conduct themselves nor does it seem to have an impact on whether or not they abide by the law.

A Cover-up in New Hartford...Part 2

Having witnessed first-hand the disgraceful way the Town Board and in particular, Town Supervisor Earle Reed, treated the town resident, Concerned Citizens wanted to try to let this person know that we had a videotape of the meeting in case she wanted a copy for some reason down the road. So, we did what we usually do...on July 11, 2008, we FOILed the "restricted delivery" letter that the town resident sent to Town Supervisor Earle Reed. On July 16, 2008 we received an email from the Town Clerk stating that she had received our FOIL request that day. Clearly against the FOI Law because a FOIL request sent electronically must be acknowledged the next day if it is sent after closing or the same day if it is sent during business hours. Anyway, that is another topic. The email received from the town clerk further said:

By copy of this e-mail, I am asking the Town Supervisor to deliver a copy of the requested letter [described below] to the Town Clerk's Office by Wednesday, July 23, 2008.

Gail Young

When we still didn't receive the letter by July 24th, we once again emailed the town clerk to find out why. This time we were told:

Supervisor Reed delivered the original letter to John Shaw, Police Commission Chairman, who is out of Town until August 2, 2008. I'm trying to contact other Police Commission members to see if they can provide the letter.

Gail Young

When August 1st rolled around and we still hadn't received either the letter or a response from the town clerk, we decided to visit the town clerk's office to find out why. The town clerk told us that it was her understanding that Supervisor Reed picked up the letter at the post office, and he never took it to his office, provided the town clerk with a copy, or left a copy with his secretary. After Supervisor Reed picked up the letter he just took it straight to the Chairman of the Police Commission. End of story...

The town clerk had no further information as to when we would receive the letter, so at that point, under FOI Law we are to able to consider the FOIL request was denied. The next step is to file a FOIL appeal to be discussed by the town board at the next town board meeting...which we did on August 11th...just in time for the August 13, 2008 town board meeting.

At the August 13th Town Board Meeting, the town clerk first informs the town board that the town attorney said to release the letter. She also stated that she called Robert Freeman, Executive Director for the Committee on Open Government and also sent him an email. Robert Freeman, according to the Town Clerk, said release the letter with the name of anyone involved whose name was not mentioned at the July 9th town board meeting redacted.

First of all, Town Supervisor Reed hands our FOIL appeal to Councilman Payne and says "this is for the stormwater committee". Apparently, even though we have been had to file several FOIL appeals with the town board due to reluctance of town personnel to release FOILable records, Supervisor Reed has no idea what is being presented to him.

First the town clerk says that the town attorney and Robert Freeman stated that the letter should be released to us. However, the town clerk later said that the Town Attorney, Gerald Green, and Police Chief Philo subsequently informed her that the letter was not to be released based on language in Civil Rights Law 50-a and she sent us an email to that effect.

Here is the part of the August 13th town board meeting where the town board discussed our FOIL appeal. You can see and hear for yourself how we objected because Civil Rights Law 50-a does not seem to apply to this case...we were not even thinking at that point that the person referred to in the letter from the resident was a police officer. The town board wanted to defer a decision until the next board meeting on Sept. 10th, but the town clerk informed the Town Board that under the FOI Law they must render a decision within 10 business days.

Key to this video is the fact that the Town Attorney and the Police Chief are citing Civil Rights Law 50-a and they say that an employee is involved. Civil Rights Law 50-a says:

S 50-a. Personnel records of police officers, firefighters and correction officers. 1. All personnel records, used to evaluate performance toward continued employment or promotion, under the control of any police agency or department of the state or any political subdivision thereof including authorities or agencies maintaining police forces of individuals defined as police officers in section 1.20 of the criminal procedure law and such personnel records under the control of a sheriff`s department or a department of correction of individuals employed as correction officers and such personnel records under the control of a paid fire department or force of individuals employed as firefighters or firefighter/paramedics shall be considered confidential and not subject to inspection or review without the express written consent of such police officer, firefighter, firefighter/paramedic or correction officer except as may be mandated by lawful court order.

We unfortunately had to change discs in our camera before the discussion was completely over, but if you attended this meeting you would have heard Town Supervisor Reed say about 3 times..."we won't be hearing from Deborah again." What that meant is we have no idea! Furthermore, the town wants us to believe that scanners are scarce in a town that spends money like it grows on trees!

Tomorrow...Part 3 - Special Board Meeting held on August 25, 2008 to address our FOIL appeal. Stay tuned...

A cover-up in the Town of New Hartford...say it isn't so!

If you missed the July 9, 2008 Town Board meeting and didn't listen to the videotape of the meeting that Concerned Citizens made available, then you missed a resident complaint regarding the New Hartford Police Dept. Here is the portion of the meeting regarding the complaint.

The resident sent a letter "restricted delivery" to Police Chief Philo. Chief Philo refused to accept the letter so the D.A. suggested that the resident send one to Town Supervisor Reed. Supervisor Reed signed for the letter on June 20, 2008, but as of the July 9, 2008 Town Board meeting, Supervisor Reed had not acknowledged the resident complaint. At the July 9, 2008 town board meeting, Supervisor Reed did his best to "shut-up" the resident, but she objected and continued on with her story.

Apparently, the resident has been stalked for the past two years and the New Hartford Police Dept. has done nothing about it; not even responding to her calls for an interview. The resident stated that she attended the July 9, 2008 on the advice of the D.A., but the town board told her that they were only laymen and she would need to talk to the Police Commission. The Police Commission...John Shaw, Jim Spellman, Patrick Cardinale, Kevin Copeland, Janet Hughes...like they are anything more than laymen!

Supervisor Reed ended the conversation with the resident by saying that the D.A. is a friend of his and he would talk to him, but not until the middle of the next week because Supervisor Reed was tied up with the Boilermaker.

Why would the Town Supervisor, the entire Town Board and the Chief of Police treat any resident in this manner? There is only one answer...because the stalker is either a "friend" of the town board, a elected official or a New Hartford Policeman.

Part 2 will be online tomorrow. Stay tuned...

Stop the clock!!!!!

Finally, the New Hartford Employees' Union contracts have been given to Concerned Citizens after several FOIL requests!

Even though the contract was approved by the New Hartford School Board on January 8, 2008, the contract was not signed by both parties until August 12, 2008. According to Robert Nole, soon to be District Superintendent Robert Nole, the employees were already being paid under the new contract even before the contract was signed. What took so long for the signatures and what were they still negotiating up until August 12th? How a school district can pay under a contract that has yet to be signed is perplexing.

For clarification, you will note that Appendix C of the contract is not signed. Concerned Citizens wrote to Ms. Greico, NHCS Records Officer and questioned as to whether that part was still being negotiated or if it was an oversight. We received a letter back from Robert Nole assuring us that Appendix C is a valid part of the contract. Apparently, Mr. Nole is psychic because he answered our letter before we even asked. His letter is dated August 8th in answer to our August 14th inquiry. Oops! Concerned Citizens looks forward to working with Robert Nole and we will take him up on his invitation to call or email him anytime we have a question. Congratulations, Bob on your new appointment!

You can view the signed New Hartford Employees' Union contract here; to view all the current NHCS contracts including the Employees' Union, Teachers' Contract and Superintendent Dan Gilligan's contract, click here.

p.s. Actually we are not really stopping the clock because we haven't received a copy of the COMPLETE school budget. We have received a 7 page summary budget that they are claiming to be the complete budget, but who reading this believes that the entire NHCS operates using a 7 page budget? We will be calling soon, Bob!

Political Harassment or Just Plain Stupidity...

According to the article in the August 14, 2008 Observer Dispatch:

"...There will be two public hearings at the board’s Sept. 10 meeting. The first will discuss creating a no parking zone along the east side of Oneida Street between Kellogg Road and Mallory Road. Councilman Robert Payne said parked cars in the area create poor visibility for resident’s pulling out of their driveways."

For those that don't know, Robert A. Payne, III is the councilman for Ward 1...Ward 1 just happens to cover the Oneida St., Kellogg Road, Mallory Road area; the area that is the subject of the public hearing.

Councilman Payne obviously needs a compass and road map. It is true that Mallory Road is on the east side of Oneida Street; however, Kellogg Road is on the west side...actually it is Chapman Road that is on the east side of Oneida Street. Therefore, it is impossible for a NO PARKING zone to be on the east side of Oneida Street between Mallory and Kellogg Road.

Next, on the east side of Oneida Street at the corner of CHAPMAN ROAD, is McDonald's. In order to park on Oneida Street in front of McDonald's one would either have to park in the driving lane or "jump the curb". Next to McDonald's is the U.S. Post Office...it likewise would require either parking in the driving lane or over the curb. Next to that is the Better Covenant Church and then there is Creekside. We find it hard to believe that parking is a problem in this area.

Next to McDonald's, the Post Office, the church, and Creekside, there are three homes; one home has two driveways and one of the other homes has a fire hydrant in front of it. Is there really a problem in that area? Councilman Payne just so you can familiarize yourself with the area that you supposedly serve, Concerned Citizens made a slide show of the EAST side of Oneida Street (you can view the individual pictures or choose "slideshow" above the first picture...hit escape to stop the slideshow).

It seemed rather odd that Roger Cleveland quickly mentioned the topic at the last Town Board meeting without any discussion. Who requested the NO PARKING signs? Has the police chief had patrols monitoring the area to determine if the problem really exists and needs to be corrected by enacting a Local Law? We attend every town board meeting and this is the first we have heard of it. Residents in Chadwicks have requested NO PARKING signs several times, how come they haven't been able to get signs in front of their homes. The whole thing just didn't pass the "smell test" so Concerned Citizens went to the town clerk's office to get a copy of Local Law Introductory "D" of 2008; the proposed new law.

According to the copy of the proposed law that the town clerk provided to us, the proposed NO PARKING area is on the WEST side of Oneida Street between 3871 Oneida Street to the northerly edge of the driveway into Garden Homes Mobile Home Park. Hey...isn't that the opposite side of Oneida Street from Mallory Road...opposite the side that Councilman Payne told the Observer Dispatch is the problem area?

Concerned Citizens made a slide show of the west side of Oneida Street (hit escape to stop the slideshow) using the information on the copy of the proposed law that the town clerk gave us. There are a couple of businesses and a couple of apartment houses in that section but we don't see a corner. The law that the town clerk gave us clearly says:

"sign to read NO PARKING FROM HERE TO CORNER"

Corner of what?

Is Councilman Payne just confused? Shame on you Councilman Payne if you don't know the area you are supposedly representing. Or is this is a case of political harassment? Could it be that Councilman Payne has a problem with someone who owns a business on the west side of Oneida Street and this will be a case of a town law being passed by using a "bait and switch" tactic at the public hearing. Double shame on you Councilman Payne if that is the game you are playing!

By the way, we don't seem to see any cars parked on the east side of Oneida Street or for that matter on the west side of Oneida Street in the areas that are targeted.

UPDATE: There was a small correction at the bottom of the Local Section on Friday, August 15, 2008. The question still remains, if complaints were filed regarding "parked cars in the area create poor visibility for resident’s pulling out of their driveways", how come Councilman Payne didn't even know the area in question particularly when it is the area he represents on the Town Board? Was he not included in the decision making before the law was proposed? Is this a unilateral decision made by Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland and a buddy of his? The next question, just who is complaining or is anyone even complaining about parked cars in that area. Concerned Citizens thinks it is political harassment, but time will tell. Wonder who will show up at the Public Hearing in support of the NO PARKING law. Obviously, if it is that big of a deal someone should show up in support, right? I bet we can name the person...maybe __ Smith?

The Town of Whitestown apparently subscribes to...

the same "Family and Friends Plan" as the Town of New Hartford.

The Ross family resides on Cross Street in the Village of Yorkville, Town of Whitestown. Their property abuts the Holy Trinity Cemetery.

In 2001, the Holy Trinity Cemetery undertook a construction project which cleared several acres of their property. The project was approved by the Whitestown Planning Board.

Shortly after the start of construction, the Ross’ began to experience ponding water in their yard after some rainfall events. In the 25+ years that the Ross’ resided on Cross Street prior to this Project, these problems were never experienced. These ponding problems have continued to this day. Not coincidental, significant foundation damage has occurred at the Ross’ residence over the past several years.

In the summer of 2002, the Ross’ began communicating their concerns to Town Officials. Despite obvious non-compliant construction at the Cemetery, Town Officials chose to take no enforcement action.

In the spring of 2008, after years of Town inaction, the Ross' filed a formal complaint with the Town.

In response to our complaint, the Town Board directed their "independent" Town Engineer (SHUMAKER ENGINEERING) to evaluate our complaint and prepare a response. SHUMAKER ENGINEERING did so, and concluded that the Whitestown Planning Board acted properly in 2001, and that neither the Cemetery nor Town is responsible for these problems.

In 2001, Mr. Karl Schrantz was the Chairman of the [Town of Whitestown] Planning Board that approved the Cemetery project. Mr. Schrantz is now the Engineering Manager of SHUMAKER ENGINEERING, the "independent" engineer that the Town Board retained to evaluate the Planning Board’s 2001 approval. Mr. Schrantz is also the Engineer-of-Record who prepared the response to our complaint; at no time does he disclose this conflict-of-interest.

Did the Town Board not see the inappropriateness in retaining the Ex-Chairman of the Planning Board, who approved this project, to evaluate the approval issued by his very own Board?

For the rest of the story, be sure to read The Ross Cause.

By the way, what company gets paid to prepare all the stormwater studies in the Town of New Hartford, has been working with Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland to "fix" the stormwater issues using the $2 million bond money and has been retained by the County of Oneida to work on the DEC Consent Order?

New Hartford Town Board Meeting...

Wednesday, August 13, 2008 at 6 p.m. in the Kellogg Road Community Center.

Agenda now online!

Re`tro*act"ive*ly...

Adv. 1. retroactively - after the fact

Did you happen to notice the Special Town Board Meeting called for 12 noon on Monday, August 4, 2008? We were wondering what the meeting was for so we emailed the town clerk and she sent us an email back that said:

This is the notice that was sent.

From: Young, Gail
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 11:51 AM
To: Dave, Reynolds; Krupa, Christine; New Hartford Supervisor; Payne, Robert; Richard B. Woodland Jr. (E-mail)
Cc: Gerald J. Green (E-mail); Cleveland, Roger; Tammy Mishalanie (E-mail); Observer Dispatch (E-mail)
Subject: Special Meeting - Aug 4, 2008

Board members, et al:

The Town Supervisor has called for a special meeting to commence at 12 N on Monday, August 4, 2008 for the purpose of authorizing competitive bids for the New Hartford Office Park - NYS Route 5 Highway Improvement Plans.

Gail Wolanin Young

Hmm! The Invitation to Bid for the Town of New Hartford Office Park, NYS Route 5 Highway Improvement Plan already appeared in the paper on Friday, August 1, 2008, just two days after the memo went out to the Town Board calling for the "Special" meeting to authorize the Highway Superintendent to advertise for the very same bids. So what are we to believe?

a. The August 4, 2008 Special meeting was just for show. A meeting of the town board (quorum present) actually was already held in private prior to Wednesday, July 31, for the purpose of authorizing the bid to appear in the paper on August 1, 2008, clearly against Town Law and the Open Meetings Law.

b. Someone on the town board gave the authorization to put a legal notice in the paper for an Invitation to Bid without a town board meeting; clearly against Town Law and the Open Meetings Law.

c. Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland took it upon himself to ask the town clerk to put the notice in the paper without consulting the town board and getting their authorization and the town clerk obliged; clearly against Town Law and the Open Meetings Law.

d. Any combination of the above.

We FOILed a copy of the DRAFT minutes of the August 4, 2008 Special Town Board meeting. Present were Earle Reed, Dave Reynolds and Bob Payne...(All of whom are up for re-election in 2009) and Town Attorney Gerald Green! Nice to see that Attorney Green could make it...he is never at any town board meetings. Guess he must have been at this meeting to cover their A$$ in case anyone asked any questions. Sorry Attorney Green, Concerned Citizens was unable to attend to ask questions, we had other business to attend to...if you know what we mean. Besides we already knew that the bid invitation was put in the paper without proper town board authorization.

We emailed the town clerk after the meeting and asked:

wasn't the Invitation to Bid already in the Friday, August 1, 2008 Observer Dispatch stating that the bids are to be opened on August 12, 2008?

To which she replied:

Yes, the Invitation was authorized retroactively.

Retroactively...Related terms:

ex post facto - (law) Formulated or enacted after some event, and then retroactively applied to it.

We couldn't find any place in Town Law that excuses and allows for town board authorization after the fact; but then again, it must be o.k. because the town board keeps doing it with Attorney Green right by their side and it appears to be the same elected official that creates the problem every time. Concerned Citizens likes to call it "closing the barn door after the horses get out"!
----------------------------------------------------------------
One other thing was discussed, but did not appear on the Notice of this Special Meeting:

Authorization for Competitive Bid – Culvert Lining and Outlet Modifications, Brantwood Road

Yes, this would be the area of town Roger Cleveland and Bob Payne briefly mentioned at the Oxford/Kellogg/Tibbitts Road stormwater meeting as being an "emergency" stormwater repair. Funny, this topic wasn't listed on the Notice of Special Meeting that was sent out to the town board and the Observer Dispatch nor was it mentioned on the Special Meeting Notice on the "official" town website.

Nice...an emergency situation! Of course, probably the fact that Councilman Payne lives on Forest Road downstream from Brantwood and Councilman Payne claims he has experienced stormwater problems in the last couple of years has nothing to do with it being an "emergency"...right Councilman Payne?

Right on, Strikeslip...

Gifts of Taxpayer Money

Question is...have enough taxpayers had enough that they are ready to join in and make their voices heard? Without an outcry from the taxpayers this will continue in the Town of New Hartford and everywhere else for that matter.

Concerned Citizens has been following this story for some time now...we will have more on the subject later today. First, we are off to pick up some FOILed documents that finally are being made available to us...or so we are told.

UPDATE: We visited the town clerk's office today to pick up our FOILed documents. Just as we thought...not all the FOILed information was available today. But tomorrow is another day. What are they hiding? We have a pretty good idea.

We will be back with more information soon. Stay tuned!

See how they run...

Larry Tanoury, Jr. shares the first ever videotaped Oneida County Party Caucus...Although the camera was allowed, two Democratic Legislators, Roseanne Convertino, D-23, and Patty Hudak, D-Rome, decided to boycott the caucus. (Click the donkey to view.)





This is the first episode of LarryTV...



Visit Larry's website for more information and videos or to email Larry.

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government believes that...

Together, we can make a change!

I'm innocent I tell ya...

According to the article in today's Observer Dispatch "Tree clearing raises permit issues in Whitestown":

Kalwara said he didn’t know he needed a permit and has no specific plans for the property. He said he cleared it because it was becoming an eyesore and a breeding ground for mosquitoes.‘

‘I didn’t know ...’
Kalwara is the father of former Town Clerk Joanne Zegarelli and father-in-law of former town Supervisor Matthew Shannon. He also is a past member of the Whitestown Republican Committee.

“I didn’t know that there was a permit that was needed, first of all,” Kalwara said. “I mean, I’m not building anything so what do I need a permit for?”

Hmm! According to the Public Notice from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Buffalo District published August 20, 2003 - Application for Permit under Authority of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), the Kalwaras had very specific plans for the property back then...are we talking about the same property?

According to the maps included with the Public Notice the Professional Engineer for the project was Alan Swierczek. According to the Observer Dispatch article:

Alan Swierczek, who provided engineering services for the project, said he was aware of the DEC’s stormwater regulations. But, he said, he did not believe permits were necessary because of the nature of the project. Swierczek is the village engineer for the Village of New York Mills and a former town engineer for Whitestown.

Goodness, page 2 of the Public Notice even stated:

The following authorization(s) may be required for this project: Water Quality Certification (or waiver thereof) from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.

Wouldn't you think that a professional engineer [Alan Swierczek] would have made sure to check everything out instead of acting on his "beliefs"?

The article goes on to say:

Intent or accident?
Whitestown Councilman Dan Sullivan and Kalwara’s neighbor Michele Roberts both said they had trouble believing Kalwara wasn’t aware of the permit requirements based on his past experience with the town.

Neary [Whitestown Codes Officer], however, said he likes to give people the benefit of the doubt. He does not believe Kalwara’s actions violated the town codes, but even when people do he said he often does not pursue fines or other penalties for a first offense. Many landowners, real estate agents and even lawyers, he said, simply don’t understand the requirements.

Just like sometimes councilwomen don't understand that not having smoke detectors installed in certain locations of their rental properties is against New York State Codes, section R3 17.1...right Mr. Neary? Oops, that only happens in New York Mills where Mr. Neary is also Codes Officer, right Mr. Neary?!

Wonder what the Army Corps of Engineer's decision was in regards to Mr. Kalwara's permit application? We suppose we could FOIL it...

There definitely seems to be a lot of these kind of problems...er...misunderstandings in the Town of Whitestown! If we didn't know better, we would have guessed we were writing about the Town of New Hartford...both towns definitely seem to have the same mantra!