"If the money’s not coming in, it shouldn’t be going out."

The editorial in Sunday's Observer Dispatch, Tax revenue down? Then cut spending, had a good message, but it missed the point of where the problem lies.

As we blogged last week, the sales tax revenue didn't all of a sudden drop for New Hartford...it remained level at about $5,000,000 as it has been since 2003. What actually happened is that this Town Board has consistently voted for a budget with between $300,000 to $500,000 more anticipated revenue each year then they could ever possibly hope to receive. And given the present economy, there is no excuse for overstating the anticipated sales tax revenue by $500,000 in the 2009 Adopted Budget. Let's use this analogy:

If you know you only make $50,000 a year and have made $50,000 a year for the past 6 years, would you budget as if you made $75,000 a year? Of course not...that would be foolhardy because at the end of the year you will still have only received $50,000...unless you win the lottery.

So, if you spent the $75,000 you wrongly anticipated you would receive, your only choice at year end would be to use your credit card (bond) or dip into your savings account...if you have any savings left.

Yet, projecting sales tax revenue of more than they could possibly expect to receive is precisely how the current Town Board has prepared their budget for the past three (3) years. As they were preparing each budget, they had all the 'tools' necessary to make a good prediction of what they could reasonably expect to receive in sales tax; all they had to do was look at the previous years' budget as compared to what was actually received in sales tax revenue. However, the current Town Board consistently budgeted for more than the town has received in any year going back to at least 2003.

So why would the town board want to consistently adopt a budget with estimated sales tax revenue of more than they could reasonably expect to receive in a normal year, let alone a year where we are clearly in a recession?

Plain and simple...to keep the tax rate down! In other words to give you, the taxpayer, a false sense of security. They wanted to keep taxpayers happy because they knew at some point they would need your "YES" vote [February 10th the bond vote] to finance Larry Adler's business park.

How did they make up the shortfall in 2007? Earle Reed said himself in the Observer Dispatch article. They have been using money from the town savings accounts. According to the Observer Dispatch April 18, 2009 article:

If necessary, the town may dip into its savings account to make up the difference, town Supervisor Earle Reed said, adding that he didn't like to do that.

“I am concerned that we have tapped into it for a couple of years,” he said of the savings account.

If he doesn't like to tap into the town savings accounts, why didn't the town board put together a more realistic budget? How many times does one have to hit their head against a wall before they say 'ouch'?

Where will they most likely get the money for the shortfall this time? They already cut out the Budget line expense item for Paving in the 2009 Adopted Budget, generally about $300,000. They already cut out Equipment for the Highway Garage which would normally be around $300,000 so where else can they get $500,000...and why wait until June to start cutting? Again according to the April 18th article in the Observer Dispatch:

Meanwhile, he said [Supervisor Reed] the town may consider revising its 2009 projections for sales tax revenue.

“After we get through June and we've got six months under our belt, we'll have a better idea of where we stand,” he said.

May consider? Isn't that like standing around to watch for a train wreck to happen? Not for nothing, but you can cut your sales tax revenue projection all you want, Supervisor Reed, but if you don't cut your spending over the next 8 months, you will still have a shortfall at year end...that's just Budgeting 101.

Question right now is...where will they get the money to cover the overstated sales tax revenue in the 2008 budget?

Question next year is...if spending is not curtailed NOW, where will the money come from to cover the overstated sales tax revenue that was budgeted for 2009? Hopefully, that will be a problem that another administration will have to tackle.

Special Town Board Meeting...

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

The meeting is to reintroduce and clarify the Fire Prevention legislation and to schedule a public hearing.

Not so fast Town Supervisor Earle C. Reed...

Three (3) questions Concerned Citizens would like answered...

1. If according to reports in the Observer Dispatch:

When an O-D reporter arrived Wednesday evening’s meeting after it already had begun, the outside doors to the building still were locked. Reed later said that was an oversight.

How come no one stayed behind to lock the doors after the conclusion of the town board meeting? Instead the town officials and the town attorney just left the building through the back doors...the same doors that were locked during the town board meeting and are designated as the entry point for people wishing to attend town meetings. Was it just an "oversight" that they never bothered to see if the doors were locked before they left or did they know darn well that they were because they never unlocked them in the first place?

2. After the town board meeting on Wednesday April 22, 2009 all the town officials including the Town Attorney left the building in a hurry. Mr. Wiatr, Ms. Lawrence and the OD reporter were left in the building alone as Mr. Wiatr finished picking up his video equipment. It is very clear on the audio recording that Ms. Lawrence was the one to turn out the lights. If Mr. Wiatr is such a threat to town employees, why didn't one of the town officials or the town attorney wait to make sure that Mr. Wiatr left the building? Was it just an "oversight" that they never stayed to see that no one, particularly Mr. Wiatr, was left in the building after the end of the board meeting?

3. If Ms. Fancett was "was deeply upset" because of Mr. Wiatr, how come she walked up to Mr. Wiatr prior to the April 22, 2009 town board meeting to hand him a copy of the agenda instead of making him go up to the Town Clerk's table to get one for himself? We videotaped the meeting...it's right there on the video recording. Was that just an "oversight" on Ms. Fancett's part?

By the way, let's look at some of the people who were in that executive session:

Robert C. Payne, III....Town Councilman and member of the NH Republican Committee

David Reynolds....Town Councilman, Deputy Town Supervisor and member of the NH Republican Committee

Christine Krupa...Town Councilwoman and member of the NH Republican Committee

Gerald Green...Town Attorney as well as member and chair of the NH Republican Committee

Laughter could be heard by everyone that was outside the closed doors of the executive session...even the OD reporter heard the laughter. Was this an executive session because of a serious threat to town employees or a meeting of the New Hartford Republican Committee trying to find a way to keep Concerned Citizens at bay?

Didn't we just read in the Observer Dispatch that the New Hartford Republican Committee would be meeting sometime in May and inviting people to screen for town supervisor...Earle Reed's slot; Ward 3 councilman...Dave Reynolds' slot; and Ward 1 councilman...Robert Payne's slot? Good luck to anyone who screens for the Republican endorsement!

Be sure to read Strikeslip's blog, A SLAPP in New Hartford???...the answers to these questions become crystal clear!

It must be re-election time...the mud-slinging has begun...

We've heard it all now...

At the first meeting where the doors were locked, April 8, 2009, Mr. Reed said privately to Ed Wiatr that the doors were locked because he "harassed the women town employees" and made too many FOIL requests. Mr. Reed also said he was going to the District Attorney in the morning (guess he was talking about his running partner) to file a compliant against Mr. Wiatr. Then, according to Earle Reed when approached by Cathy Lawrence who asked at that same meeting why the doors were locked..."it was nothing, Gail (the Town Clerk) is in Japan and the girls were nervous because they never have unlocked the door before. It won't happen again".

Now all of a sudden according to the Observer Dispatch article, New Hartford considering filing civil lawsuit:

“Ed Wiatr had gone and screamed at Melody,” Reed said about an incident involving a town employee. “She was deeply upset by his verbal attacks on her.”

We hope you have proof of what you are saying Supervisor Reed because the doors of justice swing both ways and we always have our trusty audio recorder in our pocket when we are at the town.

It's almost comical that Earle Reed is trying to accuse a member of Concerned Citizens for verbal attacks when you consider that "Anonymous" recently left a comment on our Crossing the Line blog:

Mr. Reed has certainly "Crossed the Line." But he did so a long time ago. Ask him about some of the personal statements (SLANDER) that he was spewing at a recent event about Cathy and Ed. Anyone there heard the statements.

Mr. Reed, numerous people have told us that you seem to take pleasure in being the purveyor of slanderous remarks when it comes to Ed & Cathy. Why, Mr. Reed? To try to discredit us...to try to shut us down? Not gonna work, Supervisor Reed.

Let's all ask Supervisor Reed how he tried to retaliate against Ms. Lawrence by making a visit to the President of SBU/Partners' Trust a couple of years ago.

Defamation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written publications), slander (for spoken word), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image. It is usually, but not always, a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).


If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull.
-W. C. Fields-

Using scare tactics...

Once again we were locked out of a town board meeting until the town board and town attorney said we could enter (even though Supervisor Reed promised after the last board meeting that it would never happen again); this time we weren't allowed to enter until 5:52 p.m. or 8 minutes before the meeting started.

We actually arrived in the parking lot before 5:30 p.m. and sat in our car for a few minutes so we could see who entered the building. While we waited, we saw Attorney Green try to use the back door that is normally used by people who wish to attend meetings in Butler Hall. In fact, a sign on the back door says "Use back door for Town Board Meetings". Attorney Green couldn't get in through the back door because it was locked, so he went around to the side door and apparently got in. Thinking that Attorney Green might be able to let us in, we walked up to the back door...it was locked and Attorney Green was no where in sight.

While we stood outside, Councilwoman Krupa got out of her car and as she walked toward the side door, we told her the back doors where residents enter for town board meetings were locked. Her statement was...Is it? She then proceeded to let herself in by way of the side entrance, but then she just ignored us. We watched as Councilman Payne and Highway Superintendent Richard Sherman let themselves in the side entrance. Not one of them unlocked the doors to let us in. All these people normally use the back entrance, unlock the doors if they are not already unlocked and everyone outside is allowed to enter.

Finally at 5:52 p.m. Attorney Green let us in. When we walked in, Councilman Reynolds, and Councilman Woodland were already seated. We sat through the meeting until it was adjourned...a meeting that lasted 30 minutes until the executive session was called. Town Supervisor Reed said they would be going into executive session for a personnel matter. We stated we would wait outside and would like to be called back in after the executive session was over.

When we entered the foyer of Butler Hall, three people were outside trying to get into so they could attend the town board meeting. It appears that the town board never unlocked the doors at the start of the meeting; they merely opened them to let anyone in who was there before 6 p.m. and then left them locked throughout the rest of the meeting.

We let the people waiting outside in and told them the meeting was already over; we were merely waiting for the town board to end their executive session. How many others tried to gain entrance to the building after the meeting started and left because the doors were locked is anyone's guess.

As we waited in the foyer for the executive session to end, three more people tried to gain entrance to the back door of Butler Hall. They needed to go upstairs to a meeting; we recognized all three of them as people who would have town or village business and we let them in. None of them appeared to have keys. They have probably met at Butler Hall on other evenings when there was a town board meeting and the doors have always been unlocked during the meeting. If we were not in the foyer, they probably would not have been able to enter the building.

According to the Observer Dispatch report, N. Hartford board discusses safety in closed-door meeting:

The Town Board Wednesday night went into executive session for 45 minutes to discuss what its meeting agenda called an “investigation or prosecution of a potential criminal offense and matters which imperil public safety.” But town officials later said that public safety was not in jeopardy, and no town employee was suspected of any wrongdoing.

That's funny, Town Supervisor Earle Reed first told the people in attendance at the meeting that the executive session was for a personnel matter even though the town board agenda clearly stated that the executive session was to "discuss information relating to a current/future investigation or prosecution of a potential criminal offense and matters which imperil public safety." Pretty strong words on the town board agenda that, by the way, was not made available until minutes before the meeting...and now Supervisor Reed says that the public safety was not in jeopardy. And if no town employee was suspected of any wrongdoing, how does the executive session qualify for a "personnel matter"?

When questioned by the reporter right after the meeting, Supervisor Reed continued to say it was a personnel matter; although he would not say what department was involved; he only stated that the town board, Town Attorney Jerry Green and Chief Philo were in attendance at the executive session. It must be that Supervisor Reed decided to change his story later in the evening.

The article goes on to say:

Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government, said some discussions relating to security cameras could be cause for an executive session and others could not.

If cameras were to be placed in such a way as to catch people involved in wrongdoing, then the discussions could be conducted behind closed doors.

Conversely, if the cameras would be used to monitor a particular area, and could act as a deterrent, that did not justify closing the meeting, he said. The same is true of discussions about specific employees in the building.

“If it’s a general discussion of safety of the public or employees, that kind of discussion takes place in public all the time,” he said.

As Attorney Green was letting us in, we asked about the locked doors and under what authority they decided to lock the doors. He stated that the town board would need to be passing a resolution to handle that situation soon. A resolution to lock residents out of a meeting...or a board resolution to lock out certain people who bring information to the public and at the same time sort out the baloney that this town board frequently likes to try to get away with? Which is it? Let's take a guess.

So in order to retaliate against Concerned Citizens, Supervisor Reed along with the rest of the Town Board, the Town Attorney and Chief Philo, met in an apparent illegal executive meeting to discuss how they could make it appear that it is necessary to keep doors at Butler Hall locked. Let's see, perhaps the resolution will read something like:

Whereas, we are the exalted "leaders" of our progressive town, and

Whereas, the town board feels that the only way to combat those who used our own documents and statements (FOIL) to try to make us look like idiots by constantly shedding light on our misdeeds and ineptness, and

Whereas, all of "our people" already have keys to the side door of Butler Hall,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the New Hartford Town Board does hereby declare that after the close of business on Town Board Meeting days no one may gain entrance to Butler Hall except in the minutes between 5:50 and 6:00 p.m.

Concerned Citizens believes the only thing residents in the Town of New Hartford should fear is those that like to call themselves our "leaders". Three of them are up for re-election in November 2009...Reed, Reynolds and Payne. You have the power to change the way things are done in the Town of New Hartford...

By the way, doesn't Butler Hall already have security cameras?

Insanity...

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
-Albert Einstein-

Sales tax is one of the line items that appears in the each year's town budget and is, for the most part, a 'crap shoot'. One merely has past receipts of sales tax from which to make a reasonable guess as to what might actually occur in the future. Although, along with a calculated guess, it is always wise to use a little common sense.

Sales tax received by the Town of New Hartford in 2005 was $5,181,985. The 2006 budget, adopted by the previous administration in November 2005, showed sales tax revenue anticipated to be $5,150,000 in 2006. Less than previously received, but more than budgeted for 2005. Unfortunately, the sales tax revenue received in 2006 was only $5,000,741.

The 2007 budget was the first budget of the current administration. However, undaunted by the fact that the 2006 actual sales tax revenue was less than anticipated in the 2006 adopted budget, in November of 2006, the current administration adopted a 2007 budget of $5,315,000 anticipated sales tax revenue...$265,000 more than budgeted in the 2006 Adopted Budget. Unfortunately, the actual sales tax revenue received in 2007 was $5,017,463...$300,000 less than budgeted.

Still not ready to be more realistic, the current administration 'upped the ante' and this time budgeted $5,500,000 for anticipated sales tax revenue according to the 2008 adopted budget...almost $500,000 more than the town received in 2007 and more than it could reasonably expect to receive given past sales tax receipts. According to an article in Saturday's Observer Dispatch, we now know that the Town of New Hartford received $550,000 less sales tax revenue than was budgeted for 2008.

This past November, the town board 'threw caution to the wind' and looking into their crystal ball they once again anticipated sales tax revenue of $5,500,000 and thus have included that number in their 2009 Adopted Budget. According to the article in the Observer Dispatch:

Town Councilman Robert Payne III said he would be reviewing the situation with other town council members, and would also keep a close watch on the 2009 numbers.

“This town has to be very strong and diligent with our finances for 2009,” he said.

Unfortunately, we won't know the full impact of the 2009 budgeted figures until the first quarter of 2010. All we know right now is that we are $550,000 short for 2008!
Table A
Let's look at the budgeted anticipated sales tax in a table:

2006.....$5,150,000 *
2007.....$5,315,000
2008.....$5,500,000
2009.....$5,500,000

* budgeted by the previous administration

Table B
Now, let's look at the actual sales tax revenue received each year according to each year's adopted budget:

2003.....$4,653,155
2004.....$4,950,754
2005.....$5,181,985 *
2006.....$5,000,741
2007.....$5,017,463
2008.....$4,950,000 **

* revenue received during the last administration; total used to develop the 2006 adopted budget. Looking at the single astericked [*] numbers in Table A and Table B , you can see that the previous administration budgeted less in 2006 than they received in 2005.

** The 2008 total for actual sales tax revenue received is approximate using the shortfall listed in the OD and the adopted budget total. The totals for 2003 through 2007 were taken from the adopted budgets each year. We are waiting FOILed documents for the official totals from the County.

Without doing any math, it is easy to see in Table B that each year from 2003 to 2008, the Town of New Hartford has received approximately $5,000,000 in actual sales tax revenue.

Why then would the Reed administration budget for over $500,000 more in the 2008 adopted budget than the town has historically been receiving? Furthermore, given the present climate of the economy, why would they continue to budget a half million more in the 2009 adopted budget than the town has historically received? Didn't they get the "we are in a recession" memo?

And let's not forget that from September 2007 to at least January 2009, the town was paying Frank Basile's CPA firm thousands of dollars to, among other things, assist with the annual budget.

So the questions we should all be asking are: ONE, why would the town board adopt a budget with one half a million more dollars in anticipated sales tax revenue than they could reasonably expect to receive in not only 2008 but also 2009? Question TWO is, how has the town made up the shortfalls in sales tax revenue in previous years of this administration?

Stay tuned...

Poor budgeting or...

was there something else going on?

Did you happen to see the article in today's Observer Dispatch, New Hartford deals with $550,000 shortfall in sales tax revenue?

How could that have happened when the town had a financial consultant whose firm was paid in excess of $147,000, a bookkeeper who was paid over $58,000 a year and a Town Supervisor whose main responsibility was overseeing the financials of the town?

Concerned Citizens has been analyzing Town of New Hartford adopted budgets from 2005 to 2009, and, in particular, the anticipated sales tax revenue used to offset expenditures. We will be reporting...Stay tuned!

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.

• Abraham Lincoln, (attributed)
  16th president of US (1809 - 1865)
  

Can you hear us...NOW?

If not, we will make sure you hear us in November 2009!

Can you hear us now?

Taxed Enough Already (T.E.A.)

Rome, New York Tax Day T.E.A. Party slideshow - pictures taken on April 15, 2009

Albany, New York Tax Day T.E.A. Party slideshow - pictures taken April 15, 2009

Video courtesy of Video From Pictures

All is not as it seems...

Today's editorial in the Observer Dispatch has left some people asking why do we care? The New Hartford School Foundation is a private foundation.

First of all, they are not a private foundation...there is a big difference between a private foundation and a community foundation. The New Hartford School Foundation is a community foundation. They raise their funds by soliciting contributions from the community-at-large.

Why would we care if the school foundation and the school blindly accept a donation of real estate from some "connected donors"?

For the answer, let's look at how another well-known foundation in New York State handles their donations of real estate; Tompkins County Community Foundation.

Here are the requirements for donation of real estate according to information on their website [we used red print to highlight some of the requirements New Hartford taxpayers should be concerned with]:

Real Estate

Such gifts will be reviewed by staff, legal counsel, and the Board of Directors of the Foundation. Concerns include legality, mortgages, easements, restrictions, and environmental problems. They donor must provide for obligations such as taxes and insurance. In considering the acceptance of real estate donations, the Foundation may ask that the following items be provided:

• Exact legal name of donor and federal I.D. number

• Description of property

• Description of any buildings or other structures located on the land

• Boundary survey of property with location of all structures, easements, and encumbrances appearing on the face of the survey
• Information regarding existing zoning status

• Information on all ingress/egress for the property

• Description of prior use of the property

• Description of use of surrounding property, with specific disclosure of any storage tanks or potential environmental factors affecting the property
• Disclosure of any contemplated or anticipated condemnations, rights-of-way, or other actions by municipalities that might affect the subject property

• Phase I environmental report on the property, including environmental report on any structures located on the real estate

• Specimen of title insurance commitment or schedule describing any liens, encumbrances, or title matters affecting the property

• Copy of an appraisal showing the fair market of the property current within 180 days
• Discussion with proposed donor regarding any special arrangements for donor’s fund or other sources to address ongoing expenses for taxes, insurance, assessments, maintenance, grass cutting, security, utilities, etc.

• Specimen of proposed Seller’s Affidavit disclosing any and all tenants, leases, security instruments, graves, or cemetery parcels, etc.

• Draft of proposed Warranty Deed conveying title from proposed donor to Community Foundation.

Did the Foundation or the school require a survey of the property?

How about the zoning, is the Foundation and now the school aware of any zoning restrictions?

What was the property formerly used for...was there any dumping of toxic waste material on that site by the O.W. Hubbell Company? Did the foundation and the school just accept a piece of land that might turn out to be another Scully Toxic Waste Dump leaving the residents of the New Hartford School District to foot the bill for any clean-up?

How about an environmental report? What happens if the future development creates damage to homes below the proposed park due to stormwater run-off after the development of the property? Who will be liable for remediation and/or damages?

If there was no appraisal, how did the New Hartford Foundation know what value to put on the receipt given to the donors? We can be quite certain that the donors were expecting a tax write-off for the donation. A written disclosure statement of the value of the gift must be offered to a donor who makes a contribution payment exceeding $75. The value of the gift will offset the donor’s tax deduction of his/her contribution.

Furthermore, for the foundation to say that an appraisal was done, but they no longer have a copy goes against Records Retention requirements; the records of the Foundation have to be kept for a specified period of time just like the records of any other agency. If they gave the donors a receipt for a donation of land, we would guess that they would need something in their files to back up the value given for the tax deduction receipt.

Why should taxpayers in the New Hartford Central School District be concerned? Probably for the same reason that the New Hartford School Foundation and the New Hartford Central School Board should have been concerned if they were doing their 'due diligence'.

And we haven't even begun to list the Conflict of Interest issues regarding some of the members of the New Hartford Central School Board and the New Hartford School Foundation "serving two masters".

One other thing, the school foundation comes under the New York State Freedom of Information Law because the school foundation only serves the New Hartford Central School; a government agency that is FOILable.

Concerned Citizens cares...do you?

By the way, anyone seen Dan Gilligan lately? Didn't he move out of the area where none of these potential problems will affect him now or in the future?

Everyone is Invited...

to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party. Parties are being held all over the U.S. Several are being held in close proximity to our area:

City: Albany
When: April 15, 11:00am - 2:00pm
Where: Corning Preserve

City: Rome
When: April 15, 4:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Where: Fort Stanwix

City: Syracuse
When: April 15, 11:30 am - 1:30pm
Where: Federal Building

City: Utica
When: April 16, 11:00 am
Where: New York State Office Building, 200 Genesee St

Here is a link to all tea parties being held in New York State.

Members of Concerned Citizens will be at the Albany and Rome Tea Parties...hope to see you there!

Crossing the line...

Tonight, members of Concerned Citizens were locked out of Butler Hall and told by a town employee that they could not enter until 15 minutes prior to the town board meeting because the town needed time to set-up. Town officials and employees were allowed inside, but members of Concerned Citizens were told to stay out in the chilly weather.

After we were allowed entrance to Butler Hall, Mr. Wiatr, Co-Founder of Concerned Citizens approached Supervisor Reed before the meeting began and Supervisor Reed made some accusations and threatened Mr. Wiatr that he was going to the District Attorney in the morning. Mr. Wiatr was also told that we were submitting too many Freedom of Information requests and the town will have to hire another person to handle them.

After the Town Board Meeting, Cathy Lawrence, Co-Founder of Concerned Citizens, questioned Supervisor Reed regarding the locking of the doors to keep us out and Supervisor Reed said...the girls were just nervous because they never had to unlock the doors before and it will never happen again. That explanation doesn't pass the litmus test because one of the "girls" was the Deputy Town Clerk who is present at every board meeting and is well-acquainted with Concerned Citizens.

Until tonight, the doors have been unlocked when we arrive or if the doors were locked, we have been allowed to enter as soon as someone with a key arrives; usually no later 5:30 p.m. The members of Concerned Citizens who were in attendance are well-known by town employees. Letting us in has never been an issue. In fact, there has always been casual talk between town officials, town employees and Concerned Citizens prior to the start of the town board meetings.

If we were locked out tonight by the order of Supervisor Reed, and we suspect we were, then Supervisor Reed owes Concerned Citizens an apology. If we were locked out because the Deputy Town Clerk did so on her own, then she should be reprimanded.

There is something drastically wrong with a town government that feels they have the authority to lock any citizen out of a town board meeting "until they say so".

Supervisor Reed, perhaps you would be better off spending your time working to resolve the Notice of Claim recently filed against the town by Concerned Citizens regarding the illegal payment of overtime to Ms. Fairbrother. Your demeanor tonight was rivalled only by your demeanor in previous town board meetings. Town residents and taxpayers deserve better!

Supervisor Reed, if it's getting too hot in the kitchen, then...

Redistricting and Restructuring Study

Dr. Steven Kalies, currently an Associate Professor at Utica College and formerly the District Superintendent of the Oneida, Herkimer, and Madison BOCES, gave a presentation on his study of redistricting and restructuring as it relates to the New Hartford Central Schools. As reported in an article in today's Observer Dispatch, Dr. Kalies was paid $5,500 by the school to conduct the study.

Last night we were given a copy of the synopsis of Dr. Kalies study.

Concerned Citizens has asked for the slide presentation and a copy of the complete study and we are hopeful that New Hartford Central School will make it available to us shortly. Anything that is made available to us will be posted on our website(s) and this blog.

We also videotaped the New Hartford School Board meeting to include the presentation by Dr. Kalies and we will make the video available over the weekend.

Town Board Meeting...

tomorrow, April 8, 2009, starting at 6 p.m. in Butler Hall.

Agenda is now available online!

NYRI Kaput...

Yes, it can be done! Thank you to all the people who worked hard fighting against this power line running through our community!

Our own Town Supervisor, Earle Reed, was quoted in today's Observer Dispatch as saying:

"It would have been a terrible blight on our horizon and our community. I think it gives a lot of people faith in that kind of grassroots opposition."

Oh so true, Supervisor Reed, oh so true! With people who are willing to work to achieve a goal, anything is possible and Town Supervisor Reed knows about grassroot organizations and what they can achieve first-hand. Right Supervisor Reed?

Concerned Citizens for Honest & Open Government
(a grassroots organization)

New Hartford Central School Financial Statements for 2006 & 2007

On a recent visit to New Hartford School Superintendent Robert Nole's office, we asked for several documents that we thought people might be interested in perusing before the May 19, 2009 budget vote.

We will start by giving a link to the 2006 and 2007 Financial Statements. We haven't had a chance to review them yet, but we will be referring to them in future blogs. They are long, but to those that are interested, it is high time that they are made available on the web!