Town vehicle ruling causes acrimony and divisive controversy

[nogods]

As liability goes is there a difference when something happens on an actual town function versus if an employee took a vehicle for personal use?

no

and were any town owned facilities used for this program? if so, the use of town facilities would be no different than the use of a town truck to pick up the toys.

This was characterized as a town program. Is it nit a town program? His "unofficial" distinction is dubious. If the town participates in the program then it has liability exposure. If the town lends it's name to the program, it has liability exposure.

The supervisor needs to either declare that the town has no participation in the program or stop making up spurious excuses for prohibiting the use of town trucks to pick up the toys.

[WNYresident]

I don't see how any town would have a program like this. I can see volunteer groups handling something like this but that's about it.

[nogods]

I don't see how any town would have a program like this. I can see volunteer groups handling something like this but that's about it.

That begs the question. Were any town facilities used for the program? If so, why didn't the supervisor prohibit it? The same liability issues apply whether it is a town truck or a town building.

and does the town claim this as one of it's programs?

the facebook page for the LPD claims it is a town program:

LANCASTER POLICE P.B.A./LANCASTER YOUTH BUREAU 2014 TOY DRIVE**

This morning, members of the Lancaster Police P.B.A. and the Bowmansville Fire Department volunteered and assisted the Town of Lancaster Youth Bureau with the collection and transportation of toys and gifts for the annual Toy Drive. These items are distributed by the Youth Bureau to help approximately 175 needy families with 325 children from the Lancaster/Depew community.

and from the FD facebook page:

The Lancaster Police Benevolent Association is once again looking for support from the community to help those in need during the holiday season. The P.B.A. will be accepting donations for the annual toy drive to benefit needy families in the Lancaster/Depew area. The toy drive is run in conjunction with the Lancaster Youth Bureau and the Buffalo News' Neediest Fund.

So why didn't he just be honest and state that he does not want the town involved in this program? Make a program of the PBA and News Neediest Fund. No Town involvement at all. What is he afraid of?

[WNYresident]

The question is.... why would the "town" have a program like this to begin with. I can see like a "boys and girls club" having a volunteer group or churches. As a facilities goes I think there would be very little liability exposure if a senior center was the meeting place for toy pickup/delivery. But then again I'm not a forum lawyer

[nogods]

The question is.... why would the "town" have a program like this to begin with. I can see like a "boys and girls club" having a volunteer group or churches. As a facilities goes I think there would be very little liability exposure if a senior center was the meeting place for toy pickup/delivery. But then again I'm not a forum lawyer

Why is not the issue that was being debated at the meeting. The fact is they did participate in the program. He didn't come out against it, he just interfered with it.

Someone should sponsor a resolution prohibiting the town from participating in the program to flush out his position. Let him tell the voters of Lancaster that he is against the town participating in the program instead of trying to hide between a liability issue he only partially addressed.

[4248]

Look this isn't about Christmas - its not one abuse - one event - its a Political Group who has used and abused Town Equipment and employees for years and years.

Their trying to turn it into one event/issue. These people have used Town Vehicles in years past for everything from personal shopping trips, lunch breaks, hauling family members to and from school, buying doughnuts, and even to transport them selves to other jobs.

One guy had a job in downtown buffalo - so he used a fire department vehicle to go to and from that job. They claimed he was "On call" so he needed to keep that vehicle handy.

Our past Police Chief used to conduct real estate closings in Down Town Buffalo - on duty - he parked his police car in a no parking zone. Got so many unpaid parking tickets the state revoke the registration on his car. He used official funds to finally pay all the fines.

There has been high ranking fire department personal filling their personal vehicles with gas from the high school fuel station - why - because the controlling Board members said - "Their on call" for the volunteer fire department.

One well known Town Employee took a Town vehicle out of state and blew the motor.

Town owned lawn maintain equipment was used by Town employees to cut the lawn at a catholic school - it made the alumni look good - he just happened to be the Parks Boss.

For years the Dems have used Town workers, vehicles to facilitate events to make the "Party Look good" - all tax funded.

Some people complain about Cops driving each other to and from work using Cop cars.

How can the Supervisor ever draw the line if every time he does some special interest group cries?

[nogods]

Look this isn't about Christmas - its not one abuse - one event - its a Political Group who has used and abused Town Equipment and employees for years and years.

Their trying to turn it into one event/issue. These people have used Town Vehicles in years past for everything from personal shopping trips, lunch breaks, hauling family members to and from school, buying doughnuts, and even to transport them selves to other jobs.

One guy had a job in downtown buffalo - so he used a fire department vehicle to go to and from that job. They claimed he was "On call" so he needed to keep that vehicle handy.

Our past Police Chief used to conduct real estate closings in Down Town Buffalo - on duty - he parked his police car in a no parking zone. Got so many unpaid parking tickets the state revoke the registration on his car. He used official funds to finally pay all the fines.

There has been high ranking fire department personal filling their personal vehicles with gas from the high school fuel station - why - because the controlling Board members said - "Their on call" for the volunteer fire department.

One well known Town Employee took a Town vehicle out of state and blew the motor.

Town owned lawn maintain equipment was used by Town employees to cut the lawn at a catholic school - it made the alumni look good - he just happened to be the Parks Boss.

For years the Dems have used Town workers, vehicles to facilitate events to make the "Party Look good" - all tax funded.

Some people complain about Cops driving each other to and from work using Cop cars.

How can the Supervisor ever draw the line if every time he does some special interest group cries?

So instead of addressing all those issues he goes after a charitable program? Does the town maintain the little league fields? The organizations that run those leagues are not owned by the town, they are private organizations over which the voters have no say. Does he allow town equipment and employees help those organizations carry out their activity? How dose he distinguish that from a toy drive?

He could clear it up with a simple resolution...from this point forward the town will not allow its equipment, facilities, or employees to participate in support of any program run by a non-town entity, unless specifically authorized by a separate resolution.

[4248]

I totally agree with this part of what Nogods stated:

Someone should sponsor a resolution prohibiting the town from participating in the program to flush out his position. Let him tell the voters of Lancaster that he is against the town participating in the program instead of trying to hide between a liability issue he only partially addressed.

That resolution should include the factual cost to the tax payers and waivers signed by all involved. Resolution/request to be filed 60 days prior to event use - with full use disclosure.

The items exposed in the resolution should include:

The Total number of tax paid employees involved - time spent and wages to be paid each employee.

The total number and type of vehicles to be used and by who - no non employees allowed to ride in or on said vehicles.

Estimated cost of expenses including gas/fuel and hours of use.

This should be a one time use resolution and if the event/use is a yearly occurrence, the resolution should be for one use per calendar year and subject to renewal by further resolution yearly.

This resolution should be the standard for any non duty use of any Town Tax funded vehicles or equipment - to include sports events - holiday events - or any personal or group requests for assistance using either employees or equipment.

That would end all the back door Party Glad Handing use of tax funded fuel, employees and equipment.

[WNYresident]

Why is not the issue that was being debated at the meeting. The fact is they did participate in the program. He didn't come out against it, he just interfered with it.

Someone should sponsor a resolution prohibiting the town from participating in the program to flush out his position. Let him tell the voters of Lancaster that he is against the town participating in the program instead of trying to hide between a liability issue he only partially addressed.

He got legal advice about possible liability issues and put the property/business owners best interest first. That is what he should be doing.

Now you are being a dick. Why not just advertise he's against poor little kids receiving gifts? You know what? Call the guy who puts the flyers together for the Cheektowaga Democratic Party come election time. I bet he could come up with some grinch looking character pulling gifts away from needy children.

[WNYresident]

The Total number of tax paid employees involved - time spent and wages to be paid each employee.
.

Now there you go spreading BS. You know for a fact that these employees are volunteers and not doing this on town time.

[nogods]

He got legal advice about possible liability issues and put the property/business owners best interest first. That is what he should be doing.

Now you are being a dick. Why not just advertise he's against poor little kids receiving gifts? You know what? Call the guy who puts the flyers together for the Cheektowaga Democratic Party come election time. I bet he could come up with some grinch looking character pulling gifts away from needy children.

No he did not. The liability issue is the same for using town trucks, town property, town employees, and even the town name. He chose to address only one of those issues. If he had a 1/4 of a working brain, when he found out the town could be liable oif any damages was caused by the use of its trucks, he should have said "and that is true for everything else as well, so no trucks, no facilities, no employees, and our name cannot be associated with the event, because if someone gets injured they will sue each of the "partners" in this venture."

But some how all of that escaped him when he went after only the trucks.

[Lee Chowaniec]

I gotta say...you people live in a royally screwed up town. Are the majority of residents idiots?

No more so-called screwed up than any other municipality.

Some people would like to see a change in the status quo of the one-party controlled town board.

The residents are not idiots. They have been misled by the party in power for years where votes were bought with favors and deals cut that adversely impacted the community as a whole. The great majority of residents have no idea what type of governance they voted. Several years ago registered Democrats outnumbered Republicans near 2-1. There is more parity now and 'blanks' make up over 20% of the registered voters in town. These guys are going to have to work for their votes.

The difference in Lancaster is that there is now a Republican supervisor in office who has brought much transparency and openness and has given ear to residents who seek reform from past bad governance practices. Unfortunately, there is no investigative reporting done by the quote 'professional' media.

The ruling presented by Fudoli will be tested. This has opened a Pandora's box regarding town vehicle use and manpower regarding providing services for organizations not sanctioned by the town and/or for personal use or political gain.

This is more complex that what some people believe. The town donates $10,000 annually to the Lancaster Rural Cemetery and has provided materials and manpower to keep it viable, otherwise the town would have to take it over and manage it - by New York State Law. If the town had to operate it the operation cost would increase by multiples and impact the taxpayers. Should this practice be discontinued? I think not.

If the legal opinion Fudoli received is correct, change should come as to how many of the town's vehicles should not leave the district unless conducting town biusiness. Now trying to establish whether such vehicles cited outside town boundaries were conducting town business is another matter.

[gorja]

The supervisor and his wife were at the Youth bureau helping out with the program on Thursday.

[nogods]

The supervisor and his wife were at the Youth bureau helping out with the program on Thursday.

So Town property was used for this event. Which makes the prohibition of the use of town trucks even more inane.

Did the supervisior ever think to ask "hey, if we have greater liability exposure allowing our trucks to help a non-town sponsored event, don't we also have greater liability exposure allowing our facilities to be used for the non-town event?"

His failure to do so either reflects stupidity or political motive for interfering with the use of the trucks.

There is a very simple solution - do what is done for other organizations using town assets (whether or not they are charged for such use) - require that they sign an indemnity agreement, have the town named as additional insured on their insurance policy, and provide the required insurance certificates for liability and worker's comp coverage.

But using the liability excuse to take revenge on political opponents was a lowball shot. Then complaining about being called out for it and trying to characterize the people who exposed his little tantrum as political grouches was even more transparent of what his real motives were in the first place.

[4248]

Many of us believe its more misplaced trust than anything else - it has taken him 3 years to uncover just the tip of the Dem Glad Handing iceberg.

He has been blocked at every turn by the Dem Controllers - he's not informed of - nor invited to meetings or informational events. He is mislead and misinformed by the Town Clerk and Council Members.

The Dem appointed full time paid/part time working Town Attorney works for the Dem Controllers and is less than honest with the Supervisor.

When you have all Departments Controlled by like minded Party Players - stone walling is common place - this needs to change.

You have one Party rule that thrives on creating Patronage and Nepotism - you have a tax funded bureaucracy of deceit and self service.

As was stated many times - these people believe they own Lancaster - in their minds the Supervisor is intruding on their entitlements.

As Councilman Stempniak stated when reelected, "The voters gave us a mandate to do as we see fit"