Town Codes        Town Codes        Search Town Minutes

Friday, February 12, 2010

I have been bloggerized...

Wow! Strike used the title of my last blog for the title of his own blog; see To err is human; to Blog Divine!, then he goes on to tear my blog apart piece by piece.

Wait a minute Strike! I'm not going to let you have the last word on this.

In response to my blog where I said:
Strike, we feel that Supervisor Tyksinski was as transparent as he needed to be given the circumstances; it really is a town board's prerogative to abolish the commission; input from the public is not required.
Strike said:
Of course this was prerogative and input from the public is not required. It's not required for a lot of things that the Town does. But just because it's not required does not mean that it is not expected. We were promised transparency. We expected transparency. We did not get transparency.
My reply:

Strike, anyone who expects transparency should make a point to be at the town board meetings. That way they can hear first hand what is going on at town board meetings. As long as the discussion is held in the public and the public has a right to speak either in favor or against, I don't feel that the town board is under any other obligation for such a matter as abolishing the commission. There will be other issues where the need to notify the public in advance will be necessary, but this was not one of them. The town board made a decision that had to be made.

We provide a video of each town board meeting; those who cannot attend meetings can watch to see what took place. The public always has the right to contact the town supervisor or their councilman any time to voice their opinion. If there are enough people who voice opposition, the town board can always revisit their decision. I stand by my opinion that the town board did not need to give prior notice to the public!

Strike wrote that I said:
Supervisor Tyksinski could have discussed the topic during executive session and then merely come out of executive session to adopt the resolution after the public left . . .
And Strike replied:
Oh really? And under what provision of the Open Meetings Law would such a discussion in executive session have fallen?
My answer:
under section 105-f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;

Next, Strike pointed out that I wrote:
[He] even gave people in attendance a chance to speak. Actually, since this was not a public hearing, he didn't really even need to acknowledge comments from the audience; but he did.
Strike's opinion:
Wow! Perhaps we should be impressed with his magnanimity. But what good does it do for the public to have an opportunity to speak when it had almost no notice that this issue was even being considered?
My answer:
Strike...even if Pat had sent out personal invitations to all residents, the only people that would have shown up in droves would have been firemen, policeman and dispatch. We already know their opinion...they see it as a threat to their fiefdom. The rest of the people obviously put their faith in Patrick Tyksinski who has shown that he has what it takes to turn this town around. After the last four years, Pat is a breath of fresh air!

Next, Strike commented on my assertion that:
No, Strike, the decision needed to be made last night so the town can move forward.
So Strike responded:
No decision "needed to be made last night." The Police Commission was created over 20 years ago for certain reasons. Obviously no one bothered revisit those reasons because there was no time to research them. Since the decision was made this week without knowing those facts, and without time to reflect upon them, the Town Board cannot have known if it is just trading a present problem for a past one. In trying to "move forward," the Town may have stepped back 20 years.
My reply to Strike who, by the way, did not attend the town board meeting:
Town Attorney Cully did extensive research and took a great deal of time sharing his findings with the town board as part of the discussion at the meeting. And as Supervisor Tyksinski said, the issue can always be revisited if someone comes forth with a document that provides solid facts and documentation as to why the commission should not have been dissolved. Until then, the town board now has the authority to move the town forward regarding the police department; and that is not a bad thing; enough IS enough!
Lastly, Strike quoted me as saying:
Obviously, for too many years, the fox have been guarding the hen house. That came to an end at last night's town board meeting. Now we will truly have transparency when it comes to the Police Department because the people in charge will have to answer to the people that pay the bills.
Strike replied:
And on the above, Cathy and I can agree!

Amen, Strike! As for the rest of our discourse, we can always agree to disagree; however, I am right!


Montezuma's Revenge said...


I think Strike does not know how to back out of his situation...gracefully?

He should just send you roses...any special kind?

Anonymous said...

Ooooo . . . You gotta see what that nasty Strikeslip is saying about you now . . .

New Hartford, N.Y. Online said...

Montezuma's Revenge,

Actually, I love yellow roses, but I prefer diamonds!

swimmy said...

Actually, I have to agree with Strike.

Not that I oppose the dissolution of one more useless and unaccountable layer of government. But this did seem to just jump out of no where. Not even your blog mentioned it until after the paper announced it.

At least some advanced knowledge might have been helpful. And even if the commission underhandedly hired philo's hand-picked replacement, with their dissolution, I'm sure the board could rescind it and appoint a qualified chief instead.

New Hartford, N.Y. Online said...


No one knew that the planner position would be eliminated until the paper reported on it. Where was the outcry from people then? Are you and Strike saying that eliminating the planner without prior notice to the public is o.k., but dissolving the police commission without notifying the public is not?

Believe me, the people that needed to know ahead of time regarding the police commission were told. The room was full of supporters of the commission.

In both cases, the town board had the authority to act as they did; no permissive referendum; mandatory referendum or public hearing was required.

If we try to micro-manage the town board, nothing will get done.

Arkangel said...


re: Swimmy,

re: "I'm sure the board could rescind it and appoint a qualified chief instead."

The Police Commission as established had absolute power over the Board when it cames to any facet of the Town Police force. The Police Commission had total say over the selection process, salaries and benefits, too.

The Board was subservient to the Police Commission.

Under the Reed Administration, the Police Commission members and David Reynolds, Town Councilman were abusive in their authority. This has all been documented and recently provided to the appropriate authorities for investigation and/or prosecution. This and another letter received in the U.S. Mails have shown just how far the Town's Police Commission will go when they are exposed for the illegal actions that have taken place under the Reed Administration.

I would like to know why there was not such an outcry when the Town Planner's position was abolished?

Seems like we have a double standard in the way we look at issues but really, I believe it is a mis-understanding as to why this action was taken place. Time was of the Essence.

swimmy said...

Not at all. Public awareness would have been nice for either, prior to the change.

New Hartford, N.Y. Online said...


Do you know of any government entity that works like that? Nothing would ever get done if the town board had to take it to the people every time they wanted to make a change that the law allows them to do by resolution. And as I have already pointed out, they did it in open session...anyone who is so interested in what the town board is doing should plan to attend town board meetings.

We are just happy that this administration is doing things legally. Lord knows the previous administration didn't worry about a little thing like the law!

swimmy said...

Archangel, you know better than that. Please do not piecemeal my statements and make a comment like that. I am aware that the commission, when it existed had absolute control. The portion you chose to quote came from a larger quote, "[WITH] THEIR DISSOLUTION, I'm sure the board could rescind it and appoint a qualified chief instead."


I'm not saying it had to go before the public in the sense you are implying. I'm not saying that every little thing needs to have voter approval, that defeats the entire purpose of representative government. I'm simply stating that a heads up would have been nice. Like, Hey, at this meeting, we're going to dissolve the police commission. That's all. There was nothing in the proposed agenda.

And like I stated originally, not that I oppose such actions. In fact, I support the move given my own first hand knowledge of the private security force disguised as a police department. The move needed to be done. I think it was smart of them not to table the matter either. But at least give a short heads up, even though the law does not require it. It goes a long way in restoring public trust in a very corrupt environment.

New Hartford, N.Y. Online said...


Pat stated at the meeting, and it is on the video, that he did not know about the law until Tuesday, the day before the meeting. Herb Cully actually passed out the Town law to the board members at the meeting.

So do they wait for the next meeting in two weeks or do they do what they did. I guess everyone has their own opinion on that.

swimmy said...

They can have emergency or special meetings can't they? Maybe give one with 48-hrs notice.

Either way, what is done is done. And I'm not opposed to the move.