Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

According to the Guest Editorial in today's Observer Dispatch written by Town Supervisor Earle Reed:

We were able to retain 680 jobs locally and make the business park a reality.

Funny, on November 4, 2008, an article appeared in the Observer Dispatch The Hartford says it will lay off workers...Spokesman mum on how many. The article states:

The company announced it would lay off 500 people companywide, but Snowden [the company spokesperson] would not say how many workers at the New Hartford site would lose their jobs. ...The New Hartford office has 680 employees.

So if the company started with 680 employees and there was an undetermined number of employees laid off last November...how is it that The Hartford could have still retained 680 employees?

Supervisor Reed goes on to write:

Other local officials agreed that the development of the business park has the potential to become a major economic vehicle for the town at a time when we really need it. ...the total property taxes being generated from the business park (over and above The Hartford’s payments in lieu of taxes agreement, or PILOT) have already increased from approximately $6,100 in 2007-08 to approximately $36,000 in 2008-09.

That is because so far the town has only sold a Bond Anticipation Note in the amount of $1.4 million not the the $2.3 million that Fiscal Advisors based their calculations on and that the Town Board authorized in October 2008. So naturally, the interest on $1.4 million is less than on $2.3 million. However, according to the schedule prepared by Fiscal Advisors & Marketing, a $2.3 million bond will leave the town with insufficient funds to pay back the debt during the first five (5) years of the bond.

That is where the developer's Letter of Credit comes in. The signed Letter of Credit states it is not to exceed $500,000 and is good until 2018; with decreases each year in the amount available to cover any shortfalls. After 2018, the Letter of Credit is non-existent, but the debt won't be paid off until 2023. That leaves 5 years where we can all hope that there is sufficient tax revenue to pay off the remainder of the debt because according to the Town Board resolution, they have pledged the "faith and credit of the Town of New Hartford" for this $2.9 million debt. Who do you think is "on the hook" if anything goes awry in their predictions of "future growth" or if their "calculations" are wrong?

Incidentally, according to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes agreement (PILOT), The Hartford is only committed to their lease for 10 years; after that, they can walk away. And the signed PILOT agreement allows The Hartford to grieve their assessment each May...what do you think the chance of that happening is?

Which leads us to another point. Supervisor Reed writes in his Guest Editorial:

With the above agreement in place [meaning the PILOT agreement] and a secured letter of credit provided by the park developer [Larry Adler], the $2.3 million the town authorized last year is covered in full over the 15-year period.

Sure, it is covered in full, by your tax dollars that will not be used to offset any school, town or county budget increases as a result of the new development...instead any tax revenue generated by the business park will be used to repay debt for a private developer. The plan is to deposit the tax revenue monies in an interest-bearing account that will be managed by Oneida County Industrial Development. They in turn will release the money to the Town each year to re-pay the debt.

Supervisor Reed also wrote:

...The town issued a bond anticipation note last year that it now needs to convert to 15-year financing as planned.

Actually, the Town Board authorized a $2.3 million Bond Anticipation Note in October 2008, but they only sold a Bond Anticipation Note for $1.4 million in November 2008, which by the way they have already spent, so why are they asking voters to approve a $2.9 million bond?

According to Supervisor Reed, "Voting “yes” for the bond means":

* No tax increase.

Does anyone in New Hartford believe that their school, town and county taxes will not go up anyway; particularly with Earle Reed at the helm?

* Bond payments will be covered by the PILOT Agreement.

What crystal ball are they using that they can predict the future, especially when we are currently in a recession.

* Increased tax revenue as the remaining parcels are developed.

When will that be? First we were told that ground would be broken for a hotel and doctors' office building by September 2008, then we were told Spring 2009. Is Supervisor Reed talking about AFTER the intersection is constructed on 840? Just who will be paying for that?

* More jobs.

First, we need to hear about more businesses wanting to build in the business park.

And to think that when Larry Adler first presented his plan to the town [pre-Earle Reed], he filed a State Environmental Quality Review form stating that he didn't need any Local, State, or Federal Funding...guess all he needed was TAXPAYER FUNDING!

Perhaps it is time to tell Emperor Reed that he has no clothes and we can see "everything".

By the way, please don't miss our Guest Editorial in today's Observer Dispatch "Town Bonding Procedure Undermined Voters".

The Bookkeeper...Part 5

Getting back to Attorney Sciotti's Opinion Letter that, by the way, never even cited case law to back up his opinions; highly unusual according to attorneys we spoke to.

In Attorney Sciotti's Opinion Letter, regarding the Administrative Exemption, he says:

Under the NYSLL a bona fide administrative employee means an employee (1) whose primary duty consists of the performance of office or non-manual field work directly related to management policies or general operations of such individual's employer; (2) who customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment; and (3) who regularly and directly assists an employer, or an employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity (e.g., employment as an administrative assistant); or who performs, under only general supervision, work along specialized or technical lines requiring special training, experience or knowledge.

This is the closet possibility, but it is clear from the interview that Ms. Fairbrother does not regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. All overtime exemptions must be proved by the employer and all exemptions shall be narrowly construed against the employer.

Therefore, I do not believe that this exemption can be justified.

We did some searching of town board minutes. At the January 18, 2006 Town Board Meeting, shortly after Earle Reed became Town Supervisor, we found Resolution 35 of 2006 giving Ms. Fairbrother the authorization to exercise the powers below:

· Supervisor or Bookkeeper – open any deposit or share account(s) in the name of the Town of New Hartford

· Supervisor or Bookkeeper – endorse checks and orders for the payment of money or otherwise withdraw or transfer funds on deposit with Adirondack Bank

· Supervisor or Bookkeeper – borrow money on behalf and in the name of the Town, sign, execute and deliver promissory notes or other evidences of indebtedness

· Supervisor or Bookkeeper – endorse, assign, transfer, mortgage or pledge bills receivable, warehouse receipts, bills of lading, stocks, bonds, real estate or other property now owned or hereafter owned or acquired by the town as security for sums borrowed, and to discount the same, unconditionally guarantee payment of all bills received, negotiated or discounted and to waive demand, presentment, protest, notice of protest and notice of non-payment

And then there is Resolution 36 of 2006 (on same page as the link to Resolution 35) that states "...does further confirm that the current Town Supervisor and/or the Bookkeeper are authorized to":

. to operate all current and future accounts opened under the new Signature Card

. to operate each account, including authority to sign checks and other items

. to give Bank of American other instructions to withdraw funds, to endorse and deposit checks and other items that are payable or that belong to the Town

. to transact other business relating to each account.

While these particular minutes are relating to accounts at Adirondack Bank and Bank of America, these are the same authorizations given to Ms. Fairbrother for other banks during the previous administration; as in this example. No where in the minutes did we find a resolution to rescind, annul, amend or repeal any of the Resolutions giving Ms. Fairbrother this authority at any of the banks where town funds are deposited.

So is Attorney Sciotti saying that the kind of authority given to Ms. Fairbrother is not Administrative under NYS Labor Law? Not that the Labor Law applies in this instance because under Resolution 200 of 1999, Ms. Fairbrother comes under the Civil Service Law in the EXEMPT classification.

What research did Attorney Sciotti do before rendering his opinion? He didn't seem to know that she was an EXEMPT Civil Service Employee who does not come under the NYS Labor Law or the Federal Labor Law and didn't seem to realize the scope of her responsibilities...did he merely depend on what he was told by Ms. Fairbrother and Supervisor Reed?

Next, we FOILed Ms. Fairbrother's timesheets. We were flabbergasted by what we found and we will tell you why Ms. Fairbrother's job took more than 40 hours per week according to her records.

We will share some of Ms. Fairbrother's timesheets in our next blog. Stay tuned...

MEETING CANCELLED

The Town Board Meeting and Public Hearing scheduled for this evening has been cancelled due to the weather!

The Town Bookkeeper (cont'd)...

So Ms. Fairbrother was seemingly well aware of the terms of the deal, she knew she was an appointed employee and therefore, under Civil Service, is not entitled to overtime or compensatory time, yet she still signed an agreement to receive $71,544 in overtime pay, plus receive an undetermined amount of compensatory time for 2008. We say undetermined, because we FOILed the alleged amount of compensatory time due Ms. Fairbrother for 2008, but no one seems to be able to answer the question.

Ms. Fairbrother didn't obtain a lawyer...the Town (Earle Reed) supplied one for her...Hancock & Estabrooke...not a "two-bit" law firm by any stretch of the imagination. Why would the Town obtain legal counsel if Ms. Fairbrother didn't? If the Town Board was being prudent with taxpayer dollars, wouldn't they wait until Ms. Fairbrother hired a lawyer and filed either a Notice of Claim or lawsuit with the Town Clerk? We confirmed with the Town Clerk that neither document has been filed with her office.

We looked through minutes of many town board meetings. One in particular caught our eye...January 18, 2006. Page 7 of those minutes says in part:

"Personnel - Non-Civil Service Job Descriptions
Councilman Payne would like to see job descriptions for those employees that are non-civil service, exempt, elected or appointed. Councilman Payne will work with Personnel Assistant Barbara Aiello on these particular job descriptions."

Through the FOIL process, we learned that Town Attorney Gerald Green was involved in Ms. Fairbrother's overtime issue and has been billing the town for this work since 2006. We have FOILed his invoices and are told that we will have them in the next few days. Wonder why Town Supervisor Reed felt he needed to hire 'a big gun' like Hancock & Estabrooke if Town Attorney Green was working on the claim for overtime pay? Wouldn't a simple call to the NYS Comptroller's Office be warranted if after two (2) years (2006-2008) Attorney Green was not able to present the Town with a legal opinion on the matter? After all, the NYS Comptroller's Office renders opinions on such matters. Or they could have called the Oneida County Personnel department that handles Civil Service jobs and hiring.

We FOILed Ms. Fairbrother's job descriptions for the past several years starting with 1999. After several requests in person as to why we were not being given the FOILed job descriptions, we were finally handed a job description that is supposedly the one being used today...except that the Town Clerk told us that the Personnel Director said that even though it says that Ms. Fairbrother is EXEMPT...that is not really true. Hmmm! Is this the same job description that was given to Councilman Payne in 2006 when, according to town board minutes, he requested job descriptions?

Was the Town Board aware of Resolution 200 of 1999? Did they make Attorney Sciotti aware of the resolution? The agreement signed by Ms. Fairbrother and Earle Reed, on behalf of the Town of New Hartford, says in part:

WHEREAS, Special counsel having met with Fairbrother, reviewed related documents and information, conducted the necessary legal research and having determined she is a nonexempt employee entitled to overtime pay...

If they all knew about the 1999 Town Board Resolution, were they hoping that no one else would know about it...because under Robert's Rules Of Order (and we confirmed from the Town Clerk that New Hartford does conduct business under Robert's Rules) a legislative body (town board) has to approve another resolution by at least a majority vote in order to repeal, amend, annul or rescind a previously approved resolution.

We FOILed any resolution that might have been approved by a majority vote of the Town Board to make changes or override Resolution 200 of 1999. The Town Clerk said she doesn't remember one...but she is looking to see if she can find one. We are going to bet that one doesn't exist and the 1999 Resolution is binding.

So did the Town Board "go window shopping" for "a particular" opinion and keep "shopping" until they got the opinion they were looking for from a law firm that no one would question...a law firm like Hancock & Estabrooke; particularly since the opinion is from one of the partners of that law firm?

To be continued...Stay tuned!

Stormwater Committee Meeting...

tonight at 5:30 p.m. in the New Hartford Library. The public is welcome to attend.

Also, the next town board meeting is tonight, Wednesday, January 28, 2009 at 6 p.m. in Butler Memorial Hall. Agenda is now online! MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING CANCELLED DUE TO INCLEMENT WEATHER! PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE RESCHEDULED.

Residents in the Higby Road Water District - there will also be a Public Hearing at tonight's Town Board Meeting to adjust the debt service roll for the water district. We spoke to the Town Clerk and she informed us that some in the Water District may see an increase in debt service and some may see a decrease depending on how some of the larger parcels in the District are handled, i.e. Sitrin Home. Supposedly, according to the Town Clerk, more information will be available at the Public Hearing. Now is your time to speak up...not next year when you receive your Town & County tax bill.

Here is a copy of the proposed law.

February 10, 2009 Special Election

Emperor Reed says, "Vote 'yes' or face a tax increase!!!"

Might be time to vote 'NO' and tell the Emperor...


Don't miss Strikeslip's post over at Fault Lines...Vote "Yes"...or Take a Hike?

The Town Bookkeeper...

and Santa Reed...

Here is a link to the article in the December 21 2008 Observer Dispatch..."Bookkeeper to get $71,544 in unpaid overtime".

Let's start from the beginning...mid 1990. At that time, the town had a part-time Payroll/Purchasing Clerk. No one stayed very long and the town board was constantly in need of hiring a replacement. Finally, at the June 10, 1999 Town Board meeting, Resolution 200 of 1999 was passed. The Resolution states in part:

...the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford does hereby increase the 1999 salary of Bookkeeper Carol D. Fairbrother from Thirty-one Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty-six Dollars ($31,936) to Forty Thousand Dollars ($40,000), retroactive to June 7, 1999, with the express understanding that Ms. Fairbrother shall perform, in addition to her bookkeeping duties, all necessary payroll functions for the Town. As a Civil Service Exempt employee, the Forty Thousand Dollar ($40,000) salary for Ms. Fairbrother shall encompass all necessary hours to complete bookkeeping and payroll functions and Ms. Fairbrother is not entitled to earn and/or receive overtime and/or compensatory time effective June 7, 1999.

Hmm! Ms. Fairbrother knew what the job involved at the time that she accepted it; she knew that she would get no overtime or compensatory time because she is a Civil Service Exempt employee. One can assume that Ms. Fairbrother must have accepted those terms...she sure didn't mind taking the extra $8,000 in her paycheck. In fact, according to the 2009 Adopted Town Budget, taking into consideration that town employees receive 3% increases annually, Ms. Fairbrother's salary is now $58,709, not the $30,000 that the average bookkeeper would earn. Not a bad salary considering that in Attorney Sciotti's Opinion Letter:

"Ms. Fairbrother does not clearly fit into this exemption [Professional] for several reasons: (1) she has no advanced degree;( 2) she does not provided [Attorney Sciotti's spelling] work in a specialized area; and (3) her work was, and still is rather routine in nature."

We will get back to Attorney Sciotti's rationalization in our next blog.

Concerned Citizens was curious as to just what Civil Service Exempt meant. We spoke to the person that answered the phone at the Oneida County Dept. of Personnel, the department that handles Civil Service jobs. She told us that if Ms. Fairbrother is an appointed employee...meaning that she did not have to take the Civil Service exam in order to get the job, then under Civil Service she would be exempt and would not be entitled to overtime or compensatory pay.

We happen to know that Ms. Fairbrother is an appointed employee. More to follow in our next blog on Ms. Fairbrother's job description and other details we happened upon through the FOIL process.

Stay tuned...to be continued...

By the way, hope you don't miss the article in today's Observer Dispatch regarding the upcoming Special Election..."New Hartford residents' choice: Vote 'yes' or face tax hike".

Uh...Attorney Green, the Barn Door is open again...NEIGGGHH!...NEIGGGHH!

On January 13, 2009, Concerned Citizens FOILed a copy of the new contract between the Town of New Hartford and Frank J. Basile, CPA's, P.C. The previously signed contract expired on December 31, 2008.

A few days later, we visited Butler Hall and we were informed by the Town Clerk that there was no signed contract because "they are still working on it".

On January 20, 2009, we contacted the Town Clerk and asked that, as allowed by FOIL, we would like Town Supervisor Reed to sign a certification that no contract exists at this time.

Today, January 23, 2009 we visited the Town Clerk's office on another matter and we were handed a copy of a signed contract between Frank Basile, CPA's, P.C. and Town Supervisor Earle C. Reed...dated today, January 23, 2009. The Town Clerk said that Supervisor Reed probably won't be providing a certification because the contract is now signed and we could have a copy.

Au contraire , Madam Town Clerk...We would like a certification from Supervisor Reed that as of January 20, 2009, when we submitted our FOIL, no signed contract existed between the Town of New Hartford and Frank J. Basile, CPA's, P.C.

Furthermore, Town Supervisor Reed doesn't have the authority to sign a contract for services without first presenting it to the Town Board for their approval. Therefore, the earliest the contract could be signed would be at the next Town Board meeting on January 28, 2009...AFTER the board votes to give Supervisor Reed the authority to sign it! Therefore, there still is no signed contract between the Town of New Hartford and Frank J. Basile, CPA's, P.C. The contract, as presented to us, is null and void.

So if Mr. Basile and his fellow employees have been working for the Town, they are doing so without a legitimate signed contract and without Town Board approval...Town Supervisor Reed and Mr. Frank Basile should know that by now.

Then there is the question as to whether or not the Town Board should be soliciting bids for this contract that amounts to over $100,000 a year...after all, there must be plenty of CPA firms that would love to have that kind of annual income that they can count on!

Closing the barn door AFTER the horses get out is getting to be a habit of this administration...

We have a couple of more blogs to write about Mr. Basile and his contract, but first we are going to finish blogging about the overtime payment of $71,544 to bookkeeper Carol Fairbrother. You might be surprised as to what we found out...or maybe not given the shenanigans that seem to happen in the Town of New Hartford.

Don't forget to attend the workshop for the Southern Area GEIS at 1:00 p.m. tomorrow, Saturday, January 24th.

Southern Area GEIS Community Meeting....

We attended last evening’s Planning Board meeting that was held in order to make preparations for the Final Community Meeting regarding the Southern Area Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) to be held this Saturday, January 24, 2008, at 1 p.m. at the Willowvale Fire Co. Inc. Station at 3459 Oneida Street, Chadwicks, NY 13319.

The post card that was sent out to residents says:

The Town of New Hartford Planning Board is approaching completion of its examination of the impacts of development on the Southern Area of the Town. The purpose of the meeting is to present the study’s conclusions and seek public comment. Potential changes to the zoning, traffic patterns and storm water management techniques are among strategies addressed in the study.

The Meeting is free and open to the public and the public is urged to attend.

For more information, contact Kurt Schwenzfeier, Town Planner at 315-724-4300, ext. 5

From the sounds of last night’s Planning Board meeting, Hans Arnold, Planning Board Chair, has put a lot of thought into seeing that the Planning Board and town staff are well-prepared to explain what a GEIS is, answer any of your questions and address issues that might concern residents.

We asked to receive any written materials prior to Saturday's meeting so that we can post and give you a chance to read it over...if any information is provided to us, we will post it on this blog and our websites.

Concerned Citizens is also urging everyone to attend this meeting. Now is the time to speak up if you have questions or concerns. Please mark this Saturday at 1:00 p.m. on your calendar and plan to attend. See you there!

New Hartford Town Board asking Voters for a $2.9 million Bailout Bond...

Special Town election, February 10, 2009...more to follow.

Money, Money, Money must be funny in the rich man's world...

Brantwood Road Culvert Lining...

We will be back with the bookkeeper overtime payment saga (you won't believe what we have found... some documents might prove problematic for Ms. Fairbrother and the town board), but today we thought we would tell the story of the Emergency Stormwater job that went astray.

At the June 11, 2008 town board meeting, then Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland filled the Town Board in on the discussions of the previous Stormwater Committee meeting:

Discussion of problem in the area of Bradley Road and Brantwood Road– listed on the original list of projects. The Town has the opportunity to use a driveway and backyard for access to perform remedial work – headwall is deteriorating, conveyance pipe is rotting and water doesn’t always flow in the pipe, sometimes under it. This is a system the Town installed a number of years ago. Transports tremendous bed load downstream that plugs catch basins and culverts and results in significant flooding. Have asked Shumaker Engineering to prepare a remediation plan.

The Town Board unanimously approved that:

"the Town Supervisor to enter into and to execute an Agreement between said Town and Shumaker Engineering, the latter of whom shall develop a design and contract specifications with regard to the Bradley-Brantwood Road emergency drainage remediation, at a cost not to exceed Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars ($9,800)."

With Shumaker as the engineer for the project, the Invitation to Bid was advertised in the August 8, 2008 Observer Dispatch. Since this was an "emergency" situation, the Invitation to Bid also stated:

This is a rapid turn-around bid and construction contract, and only bidders able to obtain the required bonding within three (3) days of receipt of Notice of Intent to Award will be considered for this project.

On August 15, 2008, bids were opened and as a result, the project was awarded to Central New York Construction, Inc. as the low bidder and on September 11, 2008, then Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland sent a Letter of Intent to Katrina Hanna, President of Central New York Construction, Inc. stating that their bid was the lowest responsive, responsible bid.

On September 23, 2008, Roger Cleveland sent a Notice to Proceed letter to Katrina Hanna, President of Central New York Construction, Inc.

According to documents we FOILed, the owner of the property is Mr. Steven Kowalski (we Googled the name and believe he is the owner of Empire Recycling). According to a memo we obtained through FOIL, Mr. Kowalski was even part of developing the remediation plan and even offered to provide the piping needed to slip-line the existing culvert at his cost. We have no information as to whether or not the Town took him up on his offer.

At the October 22, 2008 town board meeting, Roger Cleveland brought a matter to the town board regarding the "emergency" stormwater situation on Brantwood Road:

Brantwood project – project commenced several weeks ago – was designed for slip lining of existing pipe. Discovered some bends that were not picked up by tv camera and one joint deflected and kept slip lining from going. Excavation was required and a lawn and irrigation system in the lawn was damaged. The Highway Superintendent presented a change order from the original quote of $81,500 to $89,715 because of the extra work. Supervisor Reed requested that the matter be tabled until the November 5, 2008 Town Board meeting.

We audio-recorded that discussion...you will find it interesting to note what explanation Roger Cleveland gave as to why the Change Order was needed and why the town board tabled the matter...you will need Windows Media Player to listen.

Then on October 27, 2008, we attended the first Stormwater Meeting open to the public. On the agenda was the Brantwood project. Mr. William (Curt) Nichols from Shumaker Engineering was the speaker...we also audio-recorded that meeting...again, you will find it interesting to note the explanation Mr. Nichols gave for the Change Order as compared to Roger Cleveland's explanation on October 22, 2008. On this audio-recording, Ed Wiatr from Concerned Citizens is heard asking the questions of Mr. Nichols.

So we have Roger Cleveland audio-recorded saying that the Change Order was because they had to tear up an automatic irrigation system in the lawn and yet Mr. Nichols from Shumaker says on the audiotape that is not true that the irrigation system was damaged...instead he said it was a major excavation job in the owner's front yard. Mr. Nichols also said that Roger was able to get the Change Order approved. Not true, Mr. Nichols.

Actually, Mr. Cleveland presented the Change Order to the Town Board for authorization on October 22, 2008. According to Mr. Nichols, the work was done and the contractors left the job site about one and a half weeks prior to the October 27, 2008 Stormwater Meeting. That would mean that approximately October 16th or 17th the work was completely done...except that Mr. Cleveland hadn't even come to the Town Board for authorization until October 22nd. According to the document that we obtained through FOIL, the Change Order that Roger Cleveland presented to the Town Board had already been signed by Mr. Cleveland as Authorized Signature for the Town; William Nichols from Schumaker Engineering; and Katrina Hanna as President of CNY Construction on October 9, 2008. Unfortunately, Roger Cleveland was not authorized to sign on behalf of the town without Town Board Approval and the Town Board tabled the matter at the October 22nd meeting stating that the matter would be revisited at the November 5, 2008 Town Board Meeting.

Bottom line:

The Change Order was never approved by the Town Board at the November 5th meeting. In fact it was never mentioned at the November 5, 2008 town board meeting and has never been mentioned or approved subsequent to the November 5th Town Board Meeting. Yet, on January 7, 2009 Richard Sherman the current Highway Superintendent approved the voucher for payment of $89,415 from the Stormwater Bond to Central New York Construction, Inc. including the additional $7,900 for the work performed per the "unapproved" Change Order.

There lingers a question as to whether the Change Order work was contractor negligence. Roger Cleveland stated at the town board meeting that "the contractor used the plans that were provided but had not reviewed the tv'ing [television camera] documents"...should they have? Mr. Nichols said there was 200 ft of culvert, but they were only able to view 60' from one end and 40' from the other end leaving 100 ft of piping in the middle that they couldn't view with their camera. So basically, they could only view half of the culvert they intended to fix.

Or should Shumaker Engineering be held liable since as the Engineer of the project, they probably would have been in charge of using the camera to inspect the existing pipe for potential problems. In the email we received through the FOIL process, Mr. Nichols states that "he just got badly burned to the tune of $10K on a state project, and Linda [the owner of Shumaker] is watching me very closely." Is that why Roger Cleveland signed the document before he even presented it to the Town Board for authorization...so that Mr. Nichols didn't have to tell his boss that he just screwed up another almost $10,000 project? By the way, the Schumaker invoice came in as exactly $9,800 just as the maximum that was allowed by the June 11, 2008 town board resolution...surprise, surprise! By the way, this money was spent out of the $2 million Stormwater Bond!

So how soon will it be before Attorney Green once again attends a town board meeting and proposes a "retroactive resolution" to Close the barn doors before the horses get out?

After 3 years of this town board, Concerned Citizens thinks the only things left in the barn are the Town Attorney and the 5 horses' a$$e$...

Town Board Meeting Tonight...

Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 6 p.m. in Butler Hall. On the agenda is a Public Hearing for a Zoning Map Amendment for 4401 Middlesettlement Road the former Hartford Insurance building that St. Elizabeth Hospital is considering purchasing.

The agenda is now online.

Santa Reed (cont'd)...

According to page 3 of Attorney Sciotti's letter, he advised Supervisor Reed "notify Ms. Fairbrother in writing of her entitlement and request that she calculate any and all overtime monies she believes are due and owing her to date keeping in mind the discussion we had with her about weekly hours 35-40." We have FOILed that letter and it is supposed to be made available to us by today according to the town clerk's office.

We have already obtained a copy of Ms. Fairbrother's "calculated" overtime for the years 2002 through 2007. Here, in her own handwriting, is a a copy of the calculations Ms. Fairbrother submitted.

Looking at the hours Ms. Fairbrother "calculates" she has worked overtime, two things jump out at us:

(1) Ms. Fairbrother's "calculated" hours increased substantially between 2002 and 2007.

(2) overtime is supposed to be paid at time and one half; however, Ms. Fairbrother's calculations use her regular hourly rate for compensation she believes is due her and she was paid the amount of her calculations $71,544.81; not the time and a half that the labor law states overtime is to be paid.

If one assumes that Ms. Fairbrother is eligible for at least 2 weeks vacation, that would leave approximately 50 weeks a year that would normally be worked by Ms. Fairbrother. In 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007, Ms. Fairbrother claims that the overtime hours worked totalled 485.14, 489.08, 494.45 and 520.45 respectively. Using 50 work weeks a year, according to Ms. Fairbrother's calculations, she would have averaged 10 hours overtime each week, each of those years.

The Town of New Hartford work week consists of 7 hour days; 5 days a week for a total of 35 hours a week. Using the average of ten (10) hours per week, that would equate to a day and a half overtime needed each and every week for Ms. Fairbrother to complete her job duties.

Some might say that you can't use averages, but even at the average of 10 hours of overtime a week...that is difficult to do consistently for 4 years in a row. If the overtime hours occurred over less than 50 weeks per year; say half the time each year or 26 weeks; that would mean that she worked on average 20 extra hours a week for 26 weeks each year. That seems unlikely by any standard.

What kind of work was Ms. Fairbrother doing that required her to work that many hours extra on average every week? Was she working at home or coming into work on Saturdays? Who was supervising her overtime work?

We have FOILed Ms. Fairbrother's original timesheets and the town clerk has informed us that they are now available for review in her office.

Here is a link to Part 1 if you haven't already read it. Don't miss part 3!

Santa Reed...

Bookkeeper to get $71,544 in unpaid overtime...did you see the December 21 story in the Observer Dispatch? Our FOILed documents are starting to "trickle" in.

First,let's look at the letter from Michael J. Sciotti, Partner of the Hancock & Estabrook Law Firm, Syracuse, N.Y. and leader of the Firm's Labor and Employment practice group.

Mr. Sciotti wrote the letter to Town Supervisor Earle Reed on July 3, 2008 after a meeting between Mr. Sciotti, Mr. Reed and Ms. Fairbrother. Apparently, Ms. Fairbrother did not have an attorney present at this meeting which seems odd. Of course, apparently Mr. Sciotti's law firm doesn't have a secretary because there are no initials at the end of the letter noting the transcriptionist/typist. Hancock & Estabrook must be a low-budget law firm...NOT! Actually, looking at some of the misspellings, we are willing to bet that Attorney Sciotti typed the letter himself. Odd...

Mr. Sciotti starts by listing the three things that determine whether an employee is exempt for purposes of overtime. (1) whether or not the employee was paid on a salary basis (Ms. Fairbrother was); (2) whether or not the employee was paid the proper amount of salary (Ms. Fairbrother was); (3) whether or not the employee's job duties fall into one of the exemptions. Mr. Sciotti states that Ms. Fairbrother's job duties fail to clearly fall into one of the primary exemptions, those being, executive, professional or administrative.

Mr. Sciotti goes on to detail the criteria for each of the exemptions. According to Sciotti, Ms. Fairbrother clearly doesn't fall under the executive exemption because she does not direct the work of two or more other employees and she has no authority to hire.

Again, according to Mr. Sciotti, Ms. Fairbrother doesn't meet the professional exemption because she has no advanced degree, she does not provide work in a specialized area and her work was and still is, rather routine in nature. Hmmm...strange and for that the town is paying $32+ an hour!!!

As far as the Administrative Exemption, Mr. Sciotti states:

This is the closet (his spelling) possibility, but it is clear from the interview that Ms. Fairbrother does not regularly exercise discretion and independent judgment. All overtime exemptions must be proved by the employer and all exemptions shall be narrowly construed against the employer. Therefore, I do not believe that this exemption can be justified.

So who is overseeing Ms. Fairbrother's work? Town Supervisor Earle Reed is her supervisor. In fact, Ms. Fairbrother is the only employee that serves at the pleasure of the town supervisor. She can be fired at a moment's notice without cause...she is neither covered by a contract nor does she fall under Civil Service...but does anyone believe that Earle Reed is telling Ms. Fairbrother how to do her job.

According to the Town Clerk, up until the beginning of 2008, Ms. Fairbrother was in charge of doing the town payroll...that job has now been given to the head of personnel. Not bad, Ms. Fairbrother is still making the same hourly rate not doing payroll as she was when she was doing payroll and she still needs to work overtime hours to get the job done!! According to the Observer Dispatch article:

She also will receive paid leave as compensation for overtime she has worked from Jan. 1 of this year.

In addition, the town board organizational minutes every year states:

RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor or Bookkeeper of the said Town to deposit funds not needed for immediate expenditures in the form of interest-bearing Certificates of Deposit, Repurchase Agreements, Treasury Bills and Money Market Certificates with the Official Depositories listed in the official Investment Policy of the Town, which policy is presented herein as a separate Resolution;

RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby authorize the Town Supervisor or Bookkeeper to pay bills/expenses to National Grid, the Mohawk Valley Water Authority, all telephone carriers, to the Town’s designated vendors for all insurance premiums, to the New York State and Local Retirement Systems (Employees’ Retirement System and Police and Fire Retirement System) for employer contributions, without prior final audit by the Town Board;

Sounds like Ms. Fairbrother does/did exercise some discretion.

Next, Mr. Sciotti answers the question...What Overtime is Due? According to Mr. Sciotti under state law an employee can attempt to recoup six (6) years of back wages with interest. He goes on to say:

Having spot checked some of Ms. Fairbrother's time sheets it appears that she has made some errors in her calculation. Some of these errors were in her favor and some were in the employer's favor. I recommend that the Town of New Hartford attempt to work out a settlement with her in exchange for a release of all overtime claims under federal and state law...

The attorney merely spot checked even after finding errors and then left it up to the town to settle with Ms. Fairbrother?!!! What happened to her meticulous records? According to the OD article:

Town Supervisor Earle Reed said the issue dates back to before his administration, and that when Fairbrother approached him about it, he retained Hancock and Estabrook.

“She had very meticulous records,” he said. “She did a ton of work on budgets and things like that.”

So a town employee "approaches" Earle Reed without a lawyer about alleged unpaid overtime pay and Supervisor Reed feels it necessary to run out and hire high-priced "special counsel" in Syracuse although the town has a town attorney and the Dept. of Labor has a phone number clearly listed on their website where one can call for FREE advice and counsel in such matters, not to mention the other resources the town has available to them such as the Association of Towns and FREE Advisory Opinions from the State Comptroller's office. In fact, the town clerk told us that her office has received no lawsuit or Notice of Claim from Ms. Fairbrother. Yet Mr. Reed felt compelled to hire "special counsel". Why?

And just how would Mr. Reed know how much work Ms. Fairbrother did on the budget...Ms. Fairbrother told us herself that Earle Reed never attended any of the budget meetings...it was only her, Frank Basile and an employee from Mr. Basile's office.

According to the Observer Dispatch article:

“That employee should have been paid and compensated and this should not have dragged out this long,” Town Board member Robert Payne said. “We’re just making sure we corrected a wrong.”

We also have it on good authority that Ms. Fairbrother never approached the prior administration regarding this matter. It somehow seems strange that she continued working overtime and waited until 2008, two years AFTER Earle Reed took office before she approached him regarding the alleged unpaid overtime!!!

So how much overtime did Ms. Fairbrother claim?

Here is a link to Part 2 if you haven't already read it. Don't miss part 3!


To be continued. Stay tuned...

General Property Maintenance...

An article in today's Observer Dispatch, State audit finds fraud, bid-rigging at Central NY DDSO seems to mention some names we have heard before.

In particular, the names Norm Gaumer and General Property Maintenance have been mentioned in our blogs in connection with former Town Highway Superintendent Roger Cleveland along with many blogs about Al Roberts, an apparent acquaintance of Norm Gaumer and no stranger to General Property Maintenance. Mr. Roberts, if you remember, is a relative of the current town councilman, Dave Reynolds.

Back on January 25, 2008, we wrote two (2) blogs regarding General Property Maintenance, Mr. Gaumer and Al Roberts.

One of the blogs was when Roger Cleveland sold a 1999 International 4700 truck and plow from the Town of New Hartford on ebay for a ridiculously low price of $7,500 and it turned up being for sale by General Property Maintenance shortly thereafter for $18,500. Here is a link to that blog Quinky Dink or not...

Here's a picture and an excerpt from that blog:

Pictured above is the information that is taped to the window of the truck that is for sale by General Property Maintenance (a landscaping business) located on Seneca Turnpike across from the Smoking Gun Saloon. Sure seems to match the truck that the Town of New Hartford sold on ebay back in December 2007. In fact, there is one identifier that was left on the truck that some might not notice, but we did! We even have a picture of it. They also did a lousy paint job because you can still see Town of New Hartford on the door if you stand at just the right angle. They must have had to put a lot of work and parts into that "old" truck...the new owner is now trying to sell it for $18,500.

Yes sir...315-853-7506...that's the phone number for General Property Maintenance!

There was also a blog called Quinky Dink (con'td).... That blog was about the Town of New Hartford dump trucks that the Highway Superintendent sold to Al Roberts before they were declared surplus by the town board and all of a sudden one of the dump trucks turns up being registered to Norm Gaumer.

Some of the shenanigans that are in the comptroller's audit of DDSO sound eerily similar to the shenanigans that have been going on in the Town of New Hartford. According to the Observer Dispatch article:

In another instance, Risucci said he had secured discounts — and possibly free items — for landscaping materials from a vendor he hired for the agency.

The Comptroller’s Office identified that vendor as Norman Gaumer, owner of Clinton-based General Property Maintenance. Gaumer was paid $318,678 during Risucci’s employment. In 2007, Risucci also sold Gaumer his 1995 Ford Mustang, the report said.

Gaumer said he had no comment about the allegations.

Ironically, Mr. Cleveland and his stepson also own a landscaping business. We blogged about a town truck that just happened to be purchased from Steet Ponte by Mr. Cleveland's stepson one day after it was turned in by Mr. Cleveland as part a bid package for the purchase of a new town vehicle. By the way, Mr. Cleveland's stepson also just happens to work in the Town of New Hartford Highway Garage.

We happened upon that traded in Town of New Hartford truck one day as the driver was helping himself to some of the free mulch in the Village of New Hartford...probably the mulch was to be used for the landscaping business. Was Mr. Cleveland and his stepson also getting free landscaping materials from General Property Maintenance in exchange for the town vehicles that happened to be sold to Mr. Gaumer and Mr. Roberts well below book value?

Mr. DiNapoli, please visit our blog...you might find a connection!