From the Bee by Julie Halm
(parts only)
Lancaster Councilman Ronald Ruffino put forth a resolution at Tuesday night's meeting of the Town board to formally investigate its options to begin the process of appointing a part-time temporary recreation director.
The resolution, which was not on the agenda, noted that the department has been operating without a confirmed director since 1996, and provides "valuable service" to the community through activities and programs.
Ruffino said there have been complaints lodged about the department and that he believes adding the position could alleviate some of those issues.
The councilman said actions such as these need to be taken when "you start seeing any type of slippage in services."
The resolution was passed by the board. A resolution regarding the same matter had been stricken from the evening's agenda. The original resolution, which was not voted on, named Kevin Kelleher to the position at a rate of $18 per hour from July 6 through Dec. 1.
Following the meeting, Ruffino noted that the resolution had not been removed because he doubted the competence of Kelleher, but rather that the town needed to explore more options before making an appointment.
Here are my questions about the aforementioned:
Is this about a position with the Parks department that is lead by Mark Lubera? Or is this about simply the recreation department with the youth & senior programing?
Also, I am confused if they have had no such director since 1996 (which is a long time ago) what services are struggling with issues and what types of complaints are we having?
How does a full-time school administrator have time to fulfill the obligations of a part-time recreation director from July 1-Dec 1? Seems like the ultimate patronage hire conspired by his daddy and golf buddy Amatura.Originally Posted by shortstuff
Can you help me to understand this? I guess I'm somewhat confused. This possible person of interest is a school administrator? And you are stating Danny has a relationship with this person of interest? Is that the reason behind Ruffino's apprehension?
I also had issues with the hiring of a part time Recreation Director and with that director being Kevin Kelleher, but I spent my pre-file and public comment session times on the other pulled resolution and the Peppermint Road project.
Issues of concern:
• No Recreation Director since 1996. What complaints, what diminishment of services that is calling for this hiring?
• This hiring is only for overseeing the Recreation Department and it is for a period of July 6, 2016 to December 31, 2016. What then? Is this a trial period and the problem will be solved in six months?
• There is a full time Recreation Attendant earning an annual $41,939 wage. You have an appointed Recreation Commission with several members on board. What’s changed that after 20 years we now undeserving the community?
• Kevin Kelleher was appointed to the Recreation Commission on January 1, 2016. Why was the youngest member chosen to become Recreation Director?
• Why someone from the Recreation Commission? Was there a posting for the position, others interviewed for the position, vetted and hired on qualifications?
• If Mr. Kelleher is gainfully employed elsewhere that does not disqualify him from taking a part time job – in my opinion. If this all about another example of patronage hiring and where the individual is not qualified Mr. Ruffino should have known that in advance of his sponsoring a resolution for hiring Mr. Kelleher; and especially when Ruffino is quoted in saying in the suspended resolution that he is not questioning his qualifications. So, what’s really going on?
A lot of questions to be asked and no one to ask them, as I was the only one who addressed the board Monday evening.
If the position is truly warranted as Ruffino said, why is is a temporary position?
Or is it temporary until the new position is placed in the 2017 budget?
IMO, a position should not be created for a particular person (Kelleher) in mind.
The position should be posted with the best qualified applicant receiving the position not Democratic family genes as the determining factor.
Georgia L Schlager
Looking back at this thread regarding the amended by the Dem 2015 budget http://www.speakupwny.com/forums/sho...r-budget/page2
It is noted in Lee's post at that time that the Dems added this
Wouldn't recreation program administrator be similar to recreation director?Posted by Lee Chowaniec:
• Added $20,000 to Recreation Department tentative budget for the creation of a part time program administrator
At that time dmckay716 had predicted that Kelleher would get the position
Does this mean that the Dems have been trying to create a job for this guy since November 2014?Posted by dmckay716:
Lee, I have been told the part-time position has been created to accommodate Mike Kelleher's son and loyal Amatura supporter, Kevin Kelleher. Our town is a joke.
Georgia L Schlager
It seems so from all appearances. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, ....
According to the St Marys HS website, baby kelleher is listed as head of school. Why does a full-time leader of a school need a part time job and how does he have time to manage both duties? Maybe Dr Vallely should apply too?
Wonder what shift he was planning on performing his recreation director duties
Georgia L Schlager
Just saying….the reason there is cause for discussion on this matter is because of the reason given for the need of the hire and who was hired.
“There are complaints coming in and we need to address that”, we are being told. What complaints and why after 20 years the need for a part time, temporary Recreation Director? What are the complaints, who currently is dropping the administrative department ball and how is this ‘temporary new hire’ going to help?
“Our services are being diminished", they say. So we hire a ‘temporary, part time white collar type’ and no laborers? That doesn’t sit well with a lot of residents. So where is the transparency and real reason for this job creation – and again why Kelleher and no bidding/vetting process.
Something is not right here and a better explanation is needed. It is not only a matter of more transparency needed here but of questionable ethical behavior as well.
If the Recreation Attendant's earnings are $41,939 plus benefits and an appointed Recreation Commission member --um... doing basically what??-what is going on that now it is needed to create a position to fill for a part time Recreation Director? What will be this person's duties then, to oversee the Recreation attendant? Or is the Recreation Attendant leaving the job? What is going on that requires overlapping of staff? This will be a cost to the taxpayers, and these redundancy of services only allows staff to sit around. I see enough of that going on at the parks already which tells me that there are too many staff. Where is Mark Lubera?
Yes, shortstuff, recreating a position that was abolished 20 years ago has a lot of tongues wagging, wondering:
• Why now?
• Is the so-called ‘diminishment in services’ a recent happening or one increasing over time?
• What are the complaints and what area generates the most complaints? Recreation includes the park, Senior Center, pools, etc., and their buildings and grounds conditions.
• As such, there is a Recreation Attending position, a Recreation Commission, activity supervisors galore and a Town Parks and Recreation Department. The cause of the service diminishment has not been identified so the areas of concern cannot be addressed, nor can it be determined if the individual(s) responsible for the diminishment is confronted and where the need of a part time, temporary Recreation Director position is warranted. This board’s mantra has been transparency, openness and credibility. As such, they owe it to the taxpayers to clearly identify the need for this position.
• People are speaking out about shortcomings at the pool facilities, the condition of the parks, the condition of park benches and grills, etc., yet no one spoke out on this at the board meeting or wrote anything on this website.
• There is even talk about legal action against the town taking place but no evidence has come forward to substantiate that claim; or what it is for.
As long as the rumors remain silent, they are nothing more than rumors and the town owes the residents no explanation; or does it? Shouldn’t the taxpayers be given a better reason for hiring than, “We used to have one of those,” or, “More people in a department will make it a more efficient department?”
If there are "residents" complaining - then Councilmember Ruffino should include copies of those complaints. The complaints had to have come through Town Hall or one of the other Dept - dont they keep records. If the are phone calls and then simeone messaged Councilman Ruffino - there should be records.
It ridiculous to recreate this position just so a loyal Party Player can have a tax-funded pension and tax funded benefits.
But this is Lancaster and its just Dem Business as usual.
#Dems play musical chairs + patronage and nepotism = entitlement !
Lets face it townspeople, Mr. Ruffino has no shame in presenting what appears to be simply patronage. Shameless representation. But what would you expect...with the majority of members on the board, why not propose somethingthat will be approved, despite its obvious incredible appearance. Go ahead Ron, laugh at the electorate! You serve them well.
Hiring practices by Lancaster town board and Lancaster central school district are not based on qualifications . A family and friends relationship is the only requirement. The controlling political party must create good paying jobs to continue the family and friends tree of hiring . This is Lancaster,this is how we taxpayers must live .
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote